User talk:MyMindWontQuiet/Archive

Archived : 09 / 03 / 2018

Links
Yo. Any reason you are now writing links as [/wow.gamepedia.com/Burning%20Legion Burning Legion] instead of Burning Legion? Xporc (talk) 13:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey. That's what happens when you copy links on wowpedia out of the editor. Don't worry about that, I always fix it later (that's why I put a "work in progress" thingy at the top normally)! -- MyMindWontQuiet (talk) 14:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Any way to convince you to stop using the editor? :p Xporc (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah I don't know, it's like using both HTML and CSS at the same time in a way because it's useful since you get to see the style and effects in real time. Problem is that it sometimes has bugs. I've been using more and more the console editor by the way. But with super long articles such as the ones I'm doing for the class campaigns the live editor is very useful.
 * If you've seen my iterations for the Valarjar#Class campaign one, you'll notice that the first pass was full of stuff like that, this was just me writing it all down. Second pass was me fixing the editor's errors. Third one was me fixing typos and further order the paragraphs. Last one was adding the pictures. Takes a while but I do get the job done!

test -- MyMindWontQuiet (talk) 21:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

New Horde template
Hiya, the "former" line u created didn't make sense as Vol'jin didn't become a former character of the Horde like Garrosh. Varok is the racial leader of the orcs. --Mordecay (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If he's dead, doesn't that mean he's a former Horde? I've received feedback that this was very unintuitive and I agree, that's why I put dead people in "former members".
 * Edit: I don't get the changes. There are two categories : current and historical. How is Vol'jin a current member of the Horde? And Broxigar, and Orgrim, and so on? -- MyMindWontQuiet (talk) 19:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The Historical line was created by User:Xporc to have the former members (the ones who left or betrayed the Horde). But on second thought, having deceased characters in the Current group is a bit odd. And personally, I think that If a character in service of the Horde dies, he doesn't become "former Horde". What about dividing it further to current, deceased and historical (traitors, former)? --Mordecay (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes the two ones we have now are definitely not enough since they're misleading. I've been contacted by people confused on this matter. In my opinion this could easily be fixed by renaming "Historical" -> "Former", which would fit both dead people and defectors/traitors. -- MyMindWontQuiet (talk) 22:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


 * But dead are not former. --Mordecay (talk) 23:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * They literally are by definition lol, if they're dead they are no longer part of the Horde. Just like your "Former Warchief of the Horde" title thingy. -- MyMindWontQuiet (talk) 23:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Gimme that definition. Well, but Vol'jin chose his successor, so he became Former WotH. And it's not my thingy but Blizzards. --Mordecay (talk) 23:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If they are dead they can't be part of a faction. They're dead. -- MyMindWontQuiet (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Would you say that Varian is a former human because he is dead? PeterWind (talk) 08:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Well Abraham Lincoln is certainly not the president of the US either. Xporc (talk) 08:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * To my knowledge, former presidents are still referred to, or at least addressed as presidents, even when no longer the one currently on the job, dead or otherwise. PeterWind (talk) 11:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You wouldn't put Abraham Lincoln under "Current presidents" ... -- MyMindWontQuiet (talk) 11:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * But I would put him into a United States of America template. --Mordecay (talk) 11:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Just like ours are in the Horde template, we didn't remove them. -- MyMindWontQuiet (talk) 12:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Warlocks
Hey man, I often wondered why VisionOfPerfection was so specific about some lore tidbits that sounded like they were official material. I finally found out his sources! Check []. Xporc (talk) 21:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah I saw that the other day when you made them and as I was reading that specific part I thought wait a second that sounds awfully familiar.. -- MyMindWontQuiet (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The original text implied that warlocks were all pawns of the Burning Legion. Interesting change over time... Xporc (talk) 21:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That page was out of date even when Vanilla launched. It lists Invisibility for mages, which was removed in beta. It also says Defensive Stance only gives a temporary bonus to armor rating (also changed by release). --Aquamonkeyeg (talk) 21:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * He probably got it from more than that page.-- 21:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah I figured. -- MyMindWontQuiet (talk) 09:52, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Main characters template
Its usage was deprecated months ago, when it was decided that the template and associated category were too vague and too difficult to maintain in the long run ^^ Xporc (talk) 10:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * What if we added a "per expansion" line? So for Legion you'd have Khadgar, Velen, Illidan etc. and it would still be true next expac. Thinking of future readers, it'd be interesting to them I believe to be able to know such things. -- MyMindWontQuiet (talk) 10:03, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Why not? You'd have to discuss it with the others I guess, considering I'll be soon away in Japan. The previous Category:Major_characters probably won't return tho, considering it was deleted once... Xporc (talk) 10:08, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah I don't think the category was very useful. -- MyMindWontQuiet (talk) 12:00, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Draenei (language)
Find me where the term "Draenei" is translated as "Those Exiles", even in an implied sense.-- 20:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "One" has several different meanings in English, which are lost or expressed differently (so, with other words) when translated into other languages. For example, "exiled ones" in English can be "those who are exiled" in other languages. -- MyMindWontQuiet (talk) 20:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that you feel that the reader will not know the difference between the word "one" and the word "one(s)"? Unless you want to actually want to explain that difference, the word has an official translation. Adding the word "those" to the translation is not helpful there.-- 20:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * All it used to say was "Ei = One". Clarification did not hurt. -- MyMindWontQuiet (talk) 20:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The change did not even resolve the issue at hand.-- 02:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

El Pollo Grande
Please tell me what is lost with this edit.-- 02:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "his goal was to summon an infernal destroyer".
 * You're also making it less intuitive for the reader. This version reads as lore info > gameplay info, while yours was lore > gameplay > lore again. And the two lore parts shared the same sentence. And it's not using erences. I just don't see what the goal was here or why you wanted to change anything. -- MyMindWontQuiet (talk) 02:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


 * To me, the version I kept it as just continued to have gameplay -> quest lore. The distinction is minimal here. The chicken is not a lore character, so mentioning the quest in prose is not that jarring. Not using tags is also not a big deal because you forgot the associated in the "In Hearthstone" section so it's clearer (though if we do that, one might argue we could as well just put that quote subsection.. in the Quotes section) even though I don't quite get the need.  -- MyMindWontQuiet 03:16, 28 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Seems visible enough since it is italicized and uses the form used everywhere. Generally there are quotes all over pages in lead paragraphs, in various other sections so moving these to its own section shouldn't be such an issue. This section could use the removal of the asterisk instead. And expansion of the Hero-related information, yeah. The  being in the HS section is also fine. I think it makes more sense to have all related content especially from a different games, in one place, in one dedicated section, instead of having it all over the page, in sections that are already big. --Mordecay (talk) 11:53, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm still not fond of the idea of dividing quotes all across the article instead of one section. But if you use  it'll be better than sandwiching the info between quotes. There's also this technically, though it could be just a "Hero interactions" redirect probably. -- MyMindWontQuiet 16:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

"Making stuff up" accusation
I really don't appreciate the random accusation you've placed saying I'm making stuff up when I cited my sources. You can dislike my type of editing but considering the majority of what I'd placed on the page ended up staying anyway you're way out of line, not to mention your challenge at my overhaul has done more damage to the page than good. Most of what you've put is a rewording of stuff I'd already placed on the page, and while sure you can claim that the Shadowlands discussion was confusion, hence why I only linked "Realms of Death" to shadowlands rather than a direct inference that Thros was the shadowlands, you're being blatantly rude about the page's overhaul. Prior to the change it had no infobox, no reference from Gorak Tul's usage of the realm as per desperation and not to mention you completely removed interlinking quests, being that of the end of the Waycrest Manor storyline + the Fate's End story; which canonically would be completed together since they both end with Gorak Tul's death in the basement of the manor as per the Pride of Kul Tiras chain. I'll accept the Thornspeaker stuff being incorrect, but that doesn't mean I'm 'making stuff up', are you telling me you haven't made edit errors before? What is your deal? You're being rude for absolutely no reason.--Berenal (talk) 23:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I mean, you literally made stuff up. That you cited sources doesn't mean you didn't make stuff up, the sources still don't say the same thing as you did. And sure, everyone makes mistakes, I have made mistakes myself in past, and in those cases I was called out. And I didn't go to others' pages asking them to not call me out. Maybe you misunderstood it as me saying you made stuff up intentionally or with ulterior motives, but that's not the case.
 * As for the Pride of Kul Tiras questline, it's not stated that the manor quest takes place before it (if it is even meant to be a particular point), as there's no indication of time, all Ulfar asks you to do is to tap the power that Lady Waycrest has unleashed in your room, which you may do before or after you (canonically or not) kill her. This is a common issue with dungeon quests, especially when they're given after you've already completed the zone and the questlines, but then you have to go again and re-kill everyone. Sometimes the devs are nice and try to make it more logical, for example the Stormsong part is before you kill Lord Stormsong since Pike says stuff about stopping Lord Stormsong, and the Tiragarde part of the questline has Flynn explicitly say it's after you went to Freehold (even though all the bosses and mobs are back and stuff).-- MyMindWontQuiet 00:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I messaged you on Discord about this, I'm not sure if the wiki is the proper medium for this discourse and I can point my stuff out a bit easier there. I'm not attempting to be rude either here, but the tone of your edits were under the insinuation of intentional misgiving. Either way I'd like to continue the discussion there if you don't mind, this website isn't the place for disputes personally.--Berenal (talk) 00:49, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure! MyMindWontQuiet 00:59, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Frostmourne revisions
Thank you for the revisions to the severely outdated Frostmourne page! As I got caught in the filter last time I tried to edit it, could I ask you to take this opportunity to address my concerns here? https://wow.gamepedia.com/Talk:Frostmourne#Incorrect_information -- thank you! Azarchius (talk) 23:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey, sure, I'll check Rise of the Lich King tomorrow (unless someone else does it first). -- MyMindWontQuiet 23:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Afras
User:Cannibeans, nobody is debating whether they should be considered dead or not. They are dead. But what you do not get is that this does not correspond to the "Status" parameter we use on Wowpedia. You seem to believe that "Defeated" means "not dead", but that is not the case. A lore character can be dead, and their status can be "Defeated" (or "Unknown", or "Inactive") too. There is no contradiction here. This is just how it works here.

Now to give examples, Mannoroth is dead, we literally killed him. But his status is not "Deceased", his status is "Defeated". (Or "Unknown".)

Another example, as the same exact thing happened with the loa, it was in fact Afrasiabi himself too who literally gave the same answer, a couple of weeks ago. There were loa on Zandalar, which we killed, or that died. They are dead. They were killed. But their status is not "Deceased", their status is "Defeated", or "Unknown".

Because Afrasiabi said their death may not be final and they may return. This is literally exactly the same situation here.

In fact Afrasiabi went even farther this time and gave literal examples of how exactly they could return (he gave two scenarios in fact, one where they creators or the Void shows up, and one where they just decide to return in group). And he literally ended with "It very well could happen".

All this to say, yes, they are 'dead'. Nobody is arguing that, and that's not what this is about. They can be dead, and be marked as Defeated (or Unknown) at the same time. - MyMindWontQuiet 21:31, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Mannoroth is a poor example because demons regenerate in the Nether, so any death he receives not in the Nether is, of course, a defeat and not an actual death. The Old Gods don't work in this same way, as far as we know. Afrasiabi saying these things may return, the loa and the Old Gods, doesn't mean they're destined to return. He's giving a narrative statement that if they want, they can bring these characters back. That doesn't mean we operate on the assumption that they will be brought back. He said in the same interview that Sargeras might see a return; should we go to Sargeras' page and preemptively write about him breaking out of the Seat of the Pantheon? Or should we wait until that actually happens in the narrative before writing anything about it?


 * I have the same philosophy with this. The Old Gods are deceased until they return - if they return. It's not guaranteed they're coming back, which is what "Defeated" seems to imply otherwise.


 * If my assumption is incorrect, what's the difference between Defeated and Deceased? -Cannibeans (talk) 22:34, 24 November 2018 (UTC)


 * That's again misunderstanding the principle. In regards to your Sargeras analogy, that's literally why we used "Imprisoned" (though yes, Defeated would fit as well, or Inactive or Unknown, it's just that in this case we had more specifics).
 * Deceased is for when a character is dead, has no possibility of return (naturally), and are gone for good.
 * Defeated includes characters who are dead, but (among other things) are still active in some form, or have the possibility to return.
 * Mannoroth, and demons in general, fit as Defeated (or Unknown) too. It's not that "it's a defeat and not a death", that's wrong, Mannoroth is dead, and he was killed. But there's a possibility for him to return. So we use "Defeated". This is exactly the same for the loa Afrasiabi talked about, or the Old Gods, for which he explicitly said "death is not final" and "it very well could happen". But this isn't even about the nature of death, or what it means to be dead. We already well knew they were "dead", this source is nothing new, there literally already are references linked next to the parameter, with sources saying that they are dead. And yet, we have always used Defeated or Unknown (or Inactive) for Old Gods. This is just another number next to the parameter, which will state "Defeated" (or Unknown). Because despite being 'dead', they are still (just as) present and active. -- MyMindWontQuiet 22:51, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not following your logic at all and it makes zero sense to me, but I'm tired of the edit battles so just do whatever you want as long as the interview source stays up. -Cannibeans (talk) 23:04, 24 November 2018 (UTC)