User talk:Hanskamp

Again, welcome!  -- 14:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Hans Kamp 22:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

White spaces
Please try to avoid adding white spaces when you edit a page. It affects the layout and looks weird. Regards, Iggey (talk) 20:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you mean empty lines? Hans Kamp (talk) 12:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. :)--Iggey (talk) 12:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I will avoid them from now on. Hans Kamp (talk) 17:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

LFG on the PTR
You previously had "Because the Looking For Group/Looking For More is being worked on, the related chat channel is always enabled for everyone, regardless whether players are actually looking for a group or not." Is this from a bluepost on the forums? Or an in game annoucement? I'm just trying to determine if this possibly was deliberate, or just "a PTR thing." I haven't been on the PTR myself yet - too much raiding and Brewfest left to do. 2:09 PM, 6 Oct 2009 (EDT)
 * That is also "a PTR thing". I think LookingForGroup chat will be removed as soon LFG/LFM is working as it should (i.e. they are now working on it, but sooner or later it is finished). For that reason, that part can be removed as well. :) Hans Kamp (talk) 14:12, October 6, 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify
In case you miss my comment on the talk page for the first Lich King tactics page - the Lich King is in two instances, Halls of Reflection (5-man) and Icecrown Citadel itself. Much like Kael and Anub'arak, two different instance encounters = two different tactics pages. Just to clear that up. :) --Joshmaul (talk) 06:56, October 8, 2009 (UTC)
 * I see. Thanks for clarifying. :) Hans Kamp (talk) 07:50, October 8, 2009 (UTC)

Abilities
To quote coobra: "Please don't make ability pages for random mobs. They aren't note worthy. " You might want to look at what can be done instead though. TherasTaneel (talk) 16:40, October 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by the latter? Hans Kamp (talk) 16:55, October 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * e.g. if you have a look at the mobs now, or how some of the bosses abilities are made and work out from that. TherasTaneel (talk) 17:00, October 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * I will look at bosses' abilities and adapt to the conventions that have been used there. Hans Kamp (talk) 17:23, October 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * Otherwise keep up the good work, its good to know which abilities one can encounter when facing a specific foe. TherasTaneel (talk) 17:36, October 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * I have seen recent changes to Feral Tender, Mana Stalker adn Manawraith, made by you. I could do the same. :) Hans Kamp (talk) 19:10, October 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily, but that's about how most of the abilities around are shown. If you find a better way, please apply it. :) TherasTaneel (talk) 19:17, October 18, 2009 (UTC)

Page creation
Please don't create new npc/mob pages with just their abilities please. See Help:NPC articles on creating them, Thank you. 21:26, October 20, 2009 (UTC)
 * I will do that from now on. The Boilerplate could also have an Abilities section. :) Hans Kamp (talk) 21:50, October 20, 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was so quick to add info on the kobold, I'll let you to it. TherasTaneel (talk) 21:23, October 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * Pure coincidence that we both worked on it. :) No problem. Hans Kamp (talk) 21:24, October 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the work on adding new NPCs, Hans. -- Fandyllic  (talk &middot; contr) 8:56 PM PST 25 Oct 2009
 * No problem. There will be a lot of work to be done, in the near future. :) Hans Kamp (talk) 21:18, October 25, 2009 (UTC)

Guess I should have linked Help:Mob articles as well, thats the one most designed for mobs. =) 00:57, October 26, 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes... thanks. I will use that from now on. But sometimes someone is an NPC for the Alliance, and a mob for the Horde. In that case I will see what I should do. Hans Kamp (talk) 06:06, October 26, 2009 (UTC)
 * If it's friendly to either side, it's an NPC. If it's hostile to both, it's a mob. -- 08:45, October 26, 2009 (UTC)

See Gourra? You only see your side of things. What about the Dalaran crater wizards? I'd mark them as Humanoids. BobNamataki (talk) 17:16, November 3, 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't encountered them yet, neither in-game, nor here in Wowpedia. Hans Kamp (talk) 17:22, November 3, 2009 (UTC)
 * Bob... Marking as NPCs or Mobs, completely different subject than marking as humanoids. 18:37, November 3, 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. These are two different things. An NPC can be a humanoid (most of them are, though) or a non-humanoid. A mob can be humanoid or a beast. Hans Kamp (talk) 18:39, November 3, 2009 (UTC)

Boilerplates
The easiest thing to do is to have a .txt document with all the parameters and categories available, then paste it into the article, fill in the parameters you want and take out those you don't need. See one here. -- 08:56, October 26, 2009 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of the same, only I do it in various steps. Now I have a User:Hans Kamp/Item Boilerplate. That is a general boilerplate. I just copied it to User:Hans Kamp/Nobundo's X of Contest which I am stripping for the Shaman epics, sold by Aspirant_Forudir. So I have to delete less, and I think I will make less mistakes. Hans Kamp (talk) 09:06, October 26, 2009 (UTC)

npc template
The npc template does not seem particularly useful to me: unlike item it is not distinguished from a normal link.

On putting 'npc' on both the questbox start/end, and within the text, I think it is overkill, but don't care enough to change it.

On putting item on any and every reference to an item, I do care enough there. ... particularly when one reference is called out for particular notice (objective list, below the objective description). May I peacefully dissuade you from doing that? Happy to listen to counter arguments. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 19:09, November 5, 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you give an example where I overdid this? Hans Kamp (talk) 19:19, November 5, 2009 (UTC)


 * How about this? --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 23:19, November 5, 2009 (UTC)

Item Pages
Hey, I've noticed a few changes you've been making and I just wanted to inform you on some stuff. Saying what Spec/Class an Item is useful for is redundant for a few reasons:
 * 1) It is quite obvious from the stats what and who needs this item
 * 2) If these items drop from a raid, which most of the ones you posted on do, the raid won't usually let you take something you don't need
 * 3) It's needless space being taken up

On a more positive note, very nice work though and you're efforts are greatly appreciated!

Aside from this minor fluke, keep up the good work! TeeSon5 (talk) 18:33, November 14, 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I am actually doing this, in order to help people that are new to raiding and to being a Master Looter. Though, I think that I can be mistaken, so I hope others will correct me if I mention the wrong class if the item is actually meant for a different class than the class and/or build that I was mentioning. In the same way, if the player has gathered some emblems, my addition will help players to buy the right item, having their classes and builds in their minds. Hans Kamp (talk) 18:37, November 14, 2009 (UTC)


 * Like I said, I hope I wasn't coming off as some guy who is ranting at you. The main reason why these type of things don't need to be posted is because, although you wanted to help people new to raiding or handing out loot, it's quite obvious information. Sure, you might make a mistake, but thats not really the big issue.


 * Posting obvious information is usually looked down upon here because it just takes up space, not to mean you're intentions weren't at the best interest of the reader. Most people will go into a raid knowing what they want, and if not, I doubt a Loot Master would give a Holy Priest some piece of Leather with Agility and Stamina on it :P because we all have our common sense.


 * And honestly, anybody who's gotten to level 80 should know what type of gear their spec is oriented around. Therefore, these would only be helpful to a new player, who, in most cases, isn't doing endgame raids xD
 * TeeSon5 (talk) 18:41, November 14, 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, there are a number of classes for which the "leveling spec" bears little relationship to the "raiding spec". While some of the stats will be the same, many will be different.  Example:  Druid - feral spec for leveling, resto or boomkin (or both) for raiding.  Very, very different.  Appeals such as "well, they'll do research" don't reflect my experience in-game...  --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 22:41, November 16, 2009 (UTC)

Costs
cost is no longer going to support non-gold currency, instead we'd costitem to be used. And has less upkeep. 08:20, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

Cataclysm quests, mobs and NPCs
If you (especially the admins) think, I am going too far with the latest Cataclysm related additions to Wowpedia, just let me know, and I will tone down. Hans Kamp (talk) 09:27, November 30, 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion is desired
Hey, just wanted to see if you had an opinion on whether WoWWiki should leave Wikia. Thanks. -- 22:28, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I have yet to read through that discussion. Between tomorrow and the weekend I have more time to read it, and to have an opinion about it. Hans Kamp (talk) 04:10, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, no rush. :) -- 04:12, October 6, 2010 (UTC)

Spell rank tables
Hey there, I was trying to settle some formatting and styles for the spell/ability articles before I go ahead and update a bunch. One thing that struck me was the tables of spell ranks - it seems as though almost all spells and abilities now scale with each level. Talking on IRC, there was a suggestion that the rank tables may not be as useful as before. I'm sure some readers may find the base damage/healing/mana numbers useful - particularly to see them at different levels to show how a spell scales. I drafted some tables based on Wrath, with different ranks listed - and thought you might have some ideas or suggestions on this. --Afpersing (talk) 17:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe we could ask the rest of the editors about their opinions in the forums. What is most useful? I am either thinking of large tables I had in mind or a shortened table. That is:
 * list the first level when a spell is available (1 if the spell is free at the beginning);
 * then list the next level divisible by 10, and so on, until 80;
 * then list the data at level 85.


 * For writing down the data, I unequip the gear that has stats on them, so that white gear is left. The variation in the data may then yet be determined by the build of the char that I use for gathering the data. Hans Kamp (talk) 17:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I was gathering the example data from Wowhead, it seems to have most class spells up-to-date. --Afpersing (talk) 18:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I noticed that too, when checking that out. :) Hans Kamp (talk) 18:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Essentially I had hoped to find a swift solution to the rank tables so I could get cracking on updating the spell pages. Trained rank, then every level that's / by 10 works - as they're significant enough levels (judging by achievements etc) and it gives a rough outline as to how the spells scale. We could open up forum discussion - but this may take some time to get a definitive answer. Not sure people care enough :P --Afpersing (talk) 18:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

XP Table
Can I get your thoughts on Talk:Herbalism please? Ressy (talk) 22:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I will think about what you said there. Hans Kamp (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Levels
Hey :) I was running through my watchlist and I noticed a few of your edits. You've added level info to the infoboxes on a few pages (Presence of Mind, Ice Barrier, Living Bomb, Blazing Speed), but the numbers don't match the current reality. Perhaps these are MoP numbers? If so I'd suggest removing them for now, since they don't match the actual (non-Beta) game everyone is playing (ie Ice Barrier effectively requires level 49, not 30), and won't do for at least a few months. -- Taohinton (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree it is confusing, and similar other changes also confuse me, and I have undone the edits. :) Hans Kamp (talk) 16:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

NPC article titles : RECALL
Hello.

Your opinion is required here, on a policy concerning NPC article titles.

Thanks you.

18:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion is desired
Your opinion is desired on Fan made videos.

Thanks.

14:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I will soon look at it. Hans Kamp (talk) 14:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Signature test
Since the merge, I am testing the signature. Hanskamp (talk) 09:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

RFG 6.0.1
As with the MoP beta, we don't want to mark abilities as removed from the game until they have actually been removed from the game. Not only are these changes 5-8 months away from being implemented in-game, they're also extremely uncertain at this stage. People interested in the preliminary alpha changes can read about the details on the patch page, but don't change the details of the individual pages (or mark them as RFG) until the patch is live, or at least not more than a few hours away from being live. -- Taohinton (talk) 20:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)