User talk:Hops Splurt

Again, welcome!Noobi666 (talk) 11:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Wowhead images
When adding images that are from Wowhead, please use the full image version: click the thumbnail to get the image popup, then click the "Original" text, that way you'll get the original, bigger image. 17:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And there is me trying to be helpful by reducing an image to the standard size of 180x240 for infoboxes. The image I think you are talking about (can't be sure, as you don't give any reference at all. I imagine trying to hit 200 edits per day does not leave much time for fineries) was actually a screenshot. No problem, future images will be just 3x4 ratio, of a size that happens to come out of the screenshot.

Looking For Group
I assume you came to this page looking for some information and didn't find it. What did you want the page to contain, that it does not? Or did you just need the content clarified or organized? -Howbizr (talk) 22:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see an actual description of the current interface. Preferably with screenshots of the interface windows. It should give a description of what options are available, and what their effect is. There is a How to use the LFG/LFM interface page (which I wikified) which gives useful tips on practical usage, but that page does not give a description of the interface itself, nor should it.
 * The current page still focuses on the LookingForGroup chat channel, which now has more the role of a sub-system of the LFG mechanism. Furthermore, more than 90% of the page is concerned with (ancient) history or future developments. I suggest this information is moved to separate pages (like Looking For Group (history) and Looking For Group (development), with a proper banner), and let the main page focus on the current interface. Though patch 3.1.0 is coming Real Soon Now, the differences will be limited. If the page is now made to describe the current version, an update to the 3.1.0 version will be easy.
 * People looking for information on what this interface is, what it contains and how it works should find that information on this page.
 * --Hops Splurt (talk) 12:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Totally moot now, with the introduction of the Dungeon Finder in patch 3.3.0. --Hops Splurt (talk) 10:13, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

WowWiki:Violations top or bottom
Just noticed this change... I think you misread it, cause it was correct. =P 22:31, March 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * I misread it too... X( -- 22:56, March 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * Crikey! I was completely tripped up by the bold stress. Good thing you noticed my change to the body text was opposite of my comment for that change. The current version is much clearer. Thanks. --Hops Splurt (talk) 10:09, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

Ras Frostwhisper
So's you know... the Ras Frostwhisper is "one of those chains"... on my list, but not started yet. The quest you linked to is pretty close to the end of it. It starts more with the one that has you go kill off the doctor and burn the bodies. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 22:43, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Overlord Drakuru (Betrayal)
There is no need to create a duplicate version of Drakuru when the already needed information for the quest is in the quest article itself. What purpose does it serve to create a specific NPC article for the quest mob? -- 13:44, June 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * I am very mad at you for bluntly deleting the article I just started without waiting for more information or even getting your facts right. You would have found that the Betrayal version of Drakuru has a different entry in WowHead and most notibly has more Hitpoints. I started the article with a copy of the contents from Overlord Drakuru to have a base of data that can be modified for this particular version. You deleted it before I had a chance to show what information was specific about this version. Once again your action teaches me to hide my edits to Wowpedia for as long as possible and only hit the Save Page button after I have done all the modifications I intend to put in. I call this a workaround against administators.
 * What purpose does it serve to create a specific NPC article for the quest mob? This version is not a quest mob, but an end boss.
 * when the already needed information for the quest is in the quest article itself. This article is not about the quest information, it is about the boss you fight for the quest.
 * See Betrayal for full tactics. (your reason given for deletion). This article is not about the tactics needed for the fight. And I know the tactics are in Betrayal because I just put them there.
 * So all your three assumptions were wrong. I really despair at administrators. You delete work shortly after it has been created, without waiting to see how it develops. You undo an hour of work on a page just because you assume the editor did not notice the changes made by others in the meantime (see Defense Control Crystal) despite the fact that the editor gets a warning about the other edits. Some administrators almost never add comments to their edits. You also never see the things that normal editors see:
 * Getting kicked out of the system after a relatively short time (15 mins or so, can't be sure). If you are not careful, the edit you have been working on for 20 minutes is lost because you get logged off. It also makes the text on the Special:Outbound page a joke. Promising not to show an advert if you sign in is rather meaningless if you get logged off so quickly.
 * In general: never looking at wowwiki while not logged in. This way you never experience the wiki in the way normal visitors do. E.g. you have probably never seen the Special:Outbound page.
 * Being unable to revert a pointless split of a page (e.g. Reins of the Traveler's Tundra Mammoth) into an alliance and a horde version, because that split was done by an administrator.
 * Apparently you are not aware of how frustrating it is for normal editors to battle against the special powers of administrators. Yes, I say battle, because that is what it feels like. In any discussion with an administrator the feeling the normal editor gets is: "This is the way we do it. If you, puny editor, dare to do it differently, we will simply undo your work."
 * --Hops Splurt (talk) 15:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You would have found that the Betrayal version of Drakuru has a different entry in WowHead and most notibly has more Hitpoints. We have several other versions of other NPCs and characters that has different hitpoints and IDs, but they don't have their own entries on Wowpedia.
 * This article is not about the quest information, it is about the boss you fight for the quest. The difference being? The version of the NPC is not used for anything else than the quest; it's simply a version of the main NPC that you've seen before. How does that make it notable? -- 16:42, June 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Seeing as how you have your heart set on this, I'd say go ahead, make things right. Don't forget to
 * Merge all the new information and changes in Overlord Drakuru (Betrayal) into Overlord Drakuru. Note the subtle differences in the Abilities and Quotes sections. And maybe elsewhere.
 * Add a note to Betrayal that for the fight Drakuru has 550.001 hitpoints, not the 34,137 found on his page. Otherwise players will expect to take him down in ten seconds, and be annoyed at Wowpedia for giving inaccurate information.
 * Make a double external link in Overlord Drakuru, one pointing to and one to, so users will be able to find the alternative version on the external pages too.
 * PS: please note that, even while an editor is actively working on Wowpedia, it may take a long time before a new message is noticed. They only show up at the top of fresh, whole pages and not, e.g. in preview pages.
 * --Hops Splurt (talk) 17:20, June 15, 2010 (UTC)

Did you mean "FABRICATI DIEM"? --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 20:59, June 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * re "lose your work": I have, on several occasions managed to recover my text by hitting the 'back' button. Copy/paste, or logging back in on a separate pane in Firefox then trying the "save" on the edited page again, seems to work for me.
 * re "workaround against administrators": Sometimes I've alleviated stress by adding construction to a page I'm working on. Another tactic I've used is to do development on a user subpage then move/copy it into the main namespace when I'm done.  I agree, though, that sometimes you have to hit people over the head to keep a page from getting bonked (one way or another) before you've finished with it enough for folks to get your point.
 * re "Special:Outbound": never seen that page, don't even know what it is for, specifically. Have seen the advertising "you are leaving" page, though.
 * re "Pointless Split": I agree that it's arbitrary and pointless, but there is a vocal faction that think "one object ID, one page". I believe we're beginning to wear them down regarding NPCs, though - a lot of "NPC X (zone)" pages are getting consolidated.  And if NPCs, then items should too.
 * re "separate wowhead (or wowwiki) pages": See the above about "pointless splits".  However, "X (tactics)" pages have been generally accepted.  The criteria, as best I can determine, is not "boss" or "quest" but "complexity of the description".  "Betrayal" vs "Drakuru" seems a valid exercise of the separation, to me.  I would like to see Drakuru be a consolidated page covering each of the appearances of this character, to pull all the lore together.  We're talking about one critter, not 3 or 5 or however many, that gets encountered multiple times.  Reading the individual pages, you don't get that.

Your opinion is desired
Hey, haven't seen you around in awhile, but I just wanted to solicit your opinion on whether WoWWiki should leave Wikia. Thanks! -- 12:33, October 6, 2010 (UTC)

Coppercost
Um... why would I want to use Coppercost, again, instead of just cost? I found it used on Lawn of the Dead to no particularly good purpose. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 21:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * See the descriptive text for the template. Coppercost was created to allow the expression of money from a calculated value. The particular application I had in mind was the conversion of XP to money at top level, when you get for each experience point. See Exp2gold for a practical implementation. The way it is used in Lawn of the Dead is not the intended use.--Hops Splurt (talk) 09:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * a) I've been advised that the use in the quest in question is a result of ... not wanting to do the splitting up of the value with whatever tool was being used to import quest data.
 * b) While I applaud the thought behind it, I have become less convinced that there is a hard-and-fast experience to gold translation in use by Blizzard. Some quests seem to add the monetary value on top of the "actual money" awarded, some seem to substitute the XP-money, some seem to have different conversion rates.  Specifically, I recall having tried out the Exp2gold template and found that its output did not match observed values in some cases, and did in others. Do you know if it is a valid function currently, or just an abandoned experiment? --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 22:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)