User talk:Brainwasher5

Hi there, Brainwasher5!
Welcome to our Diablo Wiki, and thank you for your contribution on User:Brainwasher5! There's a lot to do around here, so I hope you'll stay with us and make many more improvements. I am happy you decided to create an account to make yourself part of the community. Please, take the time and introduce yourself.


 * Recent changes is a great first stop, because you can see what other people are editing right this minute, and where you can help.


 * Questions? You can ask at the community portal talk page, on the "discussion" page associated with each article, or post a message on User talk:Danrr!


 * Need help? The Community Portal has an outline of the site, and pages to help you learn how to edit. And take a gander at the Manual of Style for an overview of the type of writing style required in our pages.


 * And last but not the least, please use the Forums for any kind of discussion regarding the inner workings of this wiki and get an idea of what to do next. It is always a good idea to use the Shoutbox widget to let others know that you're online or even just to say Hi.

I'm really happy to have you here, and look forward to contributing with you!


 * -- Danrr (Talk) 04:53, 28 September 2010

Re:Greeting
Well, I'm the only active admin this wiki has, but now I'm taking an unforeseen wiki-break, because of some issues I'm currently having. I'll be back to regular editing in about a couple of weeks, but I'll answer any questions you might have. Also, you are right on most of the points you made, but I don't have the time to discuss them now, sorry. If you want to, we can talk about it more in a couple of days. Anyway, it's nice to see someone who wants to get things done. Cheers - DanrrTalk 14:55, December 7, 2010 (UTC)

Dear Brainwasher
I have not left the wikia project, and I still believe that wikipedia can change the world. Unfortunately, school prevents me from being as active as I was in summer. Even more unfortunate is that I cannot help you too much with the Diablo wikia, because I have never played the game and know like nothing about it. I will correct grammar errors, but I cannot do more than that. Still, I wish you good luck with your project. -- Andra2404 [http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:Andra2404 !WARNING! Badge collector !WARNING!] 13:36, December 9, 2010 (UTC)

Format
It doesn't necessarily need to be a standard, but I think the intro should say something to that effect. Since there are now several Diablo games, it is helpful to mention which game the article is for in the beginning. Before Diablo III, this wasn't much of a problem as it was generally quite easy to know the difference between I and II, while III carried over a lot of the same concepts from II. If it sounds overly wordy, clumsy, or just doesn't really make sense to begin an article that way, there is no requirement that it must, but if it improves the article, then it should be done. ◄► Tephra ◄► 01:05, October 10, 2013 (UTC)

Skills
The D2 skills pages definitely need to be reorganized, but I'm not sure in what way they should be. Articles should not start with a section header, and the intro with the bold pagename should be at the start. However, the official descriptions seem odd coming in later. Honestly, the more I think about, the more I can't decide what format would look/flow the best. I've really had this conflict in my head for a very long time, which is why I never reorganized those articles myself ages ago. I guess one possibility I'm hovering over right now would be something like this:

◄► Tephra ◄► 10:19, October 11, 2013 (UTC)

◄► Tephra ◄► 14:18, October 11, 2013 (UTC)
 * The descriptions come from the Arreat Summit, they should be easy to reference. I noticed the skill is bold in both the intro and strategy section, that may just be an oversight, but it should only be bold in the intro. If you want another opinion on the layout, I'd suggest running it by Hawki, as I think Hawki finds the style and format of articles to be an important component.


 * Eh, more lore articles. I leave gameplay articles to the experts.


 * As per the layout, I'm fine with it. I agree with Tephra that the Arreat Summit sight is a good source - in fact, I prefer to use it as a reference to the manual when possible as those wanting to verify info can see it for themselves rather than have a vague "it's all in the manual" reference. I also agree with the bolding thing. For the smite page, I'd start with "Smite is a (passive/active/can insert term perhaps) paladin skill in Diablo II. Then have the manual blurb, then the rest of the info layout. I've done an edit to the Smite page (including some tightening of the general info, but that will always vary) to show what I mean, but aside from that, I'm fine with it.--Hawki (talk) 21:28, October 11, 2013 (UTC)

◄► Tephra ◄► 23:11, October 11, 2013 (UTC)
 * The Arreat Summit is an official Blizzard site, its contents can be considered entirely canon and accurate. I also would consider it a better source than the manual, though for a different reason than Hawki; because it can be (and has been) updated.
 * If you like the current Smite layout, go with it. You can be the person who makes the call on how those pages will be reorganized.

Complex code
As I mentioned on the Charged Bolt talk page, the code is not messed up, it is complex due to there being a template within a template. If you want to "fix" these, just replace the template with Lightning. That is, in fact, all the template does is shorten an otherwise long link. This issue will probably pop up on most lightning skill articles as the link to lightning damage will be in the infoboxes which is a template within a template. ◄► Tephra ◄► 04:15, October 15, 2013 (UTC)

Pagename issue
I know that copy/pasting the same line to every page using the lazy man's pagename trick makes a lot of work go faster, but this is sloppy and has caused some problems. Articles that have an addition in their title like "(Diablo II)" include that extra name within the intro text. The articles that have been assembled this way need to be fixed. If you continue to update the skill pages, I'd rather you put forth the effort to write the title in properly. ◄► Tephra ◄► 15:17, October 15, 2013 (UTC)

Hi Brainwasher,

Yes, it's true that the viewer does not see a difference, but I was simply trying to promote good article quality by changing the lot. Yes, I agree it's faster, but I'm just personally more inclined towards having the actual title in each article.

Eh, it's not optimal. I'm pretty sure Tephra was also of the same mind as me. I'd rather you not use, if possible. If you're unwilling to do that, please let me know and I'll do it instead. Or, if you ask Tephra to clarify his stance on the matter, we can use your method if he doesn't mind.

◄► Tephra ◄► 02:57, October 16, 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd rather the pagename code not be used within normal article text, but as long as it appears correctly, it isn't a huge deal.

Javazon notes: Armor
I'm sure you haven't overlooked it, but Duress might be a suitable substitute for Enigma or Chains of Honor. Slightly easier to obtain as well. 142.167.206.221 13:13, January 5, 2016 (UTC)

Re: D2 Skill Information
Sorry for the late response. If you haven't done so already, talk to Tephra and/or Pryamus. I'm afraid I'm the last person to talk to concerning skills/stats/etc.--Hawki (talk) 23:45, January 9, 2016 (UTC)

◄► Tephra ◄► 07:34, January 10, 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe the reason they were originally done that way is because the normal cap is 20, but there isn't really a +skill cap. So it stops at 20, but the extra 25 is so that you can see what the progression is for skills beyond. There is no reason to not have 21-24, but there isn't much point either. However, if you don't like the missing skills and want to do the work required to add them, you may do so.


 * I tried to include as much information on D2 skills as I can (much like I did for D3), but some things I cannot verify or explain myself. 21-24 skill data (and sometimes 20 or 25) I can't find, and I don't have much time to launch D2, level up a character and check myself. So, if you do that, I will be very grateful. An example of data I am lost with is : I still do not get how exactly it works, if it requires dual-wielding, how it builds stacks, etc. If you could clarify, I'd rest in peace. This is all especially true with 2.4 incoming, and for at least a couple of weeks after it hits I will be busy editing D3 articles.


 * The only thing I ask you not to do is use different standards for different articles. That is, if you change something, try to do so for all articles where fit. Example is removal of second person (you); I completely agree that it should be done, yet we need it removed from everywhere. Also, it is Wikia mission to gather all kinds of significant knowledge on the subject, so I also ask you not to remove information unless really necessary (you did not erase anything useful yet, don't worry). So, thank you in advance, and let's do this! Pryamus (talk) 11:07, January 10, 2016 (UTC)


 * Don't say sorry, you are doing very well :) glad to have you on board. In case of doubts, we are always here. Pryamus (talk) 13:16, January 10, 2016 (UTC)

Re: Thanks
It happens, will take a closer look later. You're doing good, just happen to miss words (usually the verb BE in some form) when restructuring sentences. As of < SPAN >, it usually happens when you copy and paste anything when out of Source mode (which I try to use most of the time to avoid this problem). Pryamus (talk) 10:01, January 11, 2016 (UTC)

Sweeping changes
I do not generally exert that level of authority. I consider admins to be more akin to janitors with the master key to the wiki and the ability to kick out trespassers than lords with almighty ban hammers (and I am the janitor who hires more janitors). Editors can do what they wish to articles so long as everyone else is fine with whatever they are doing. If anyone disagrees with your rampage, they can adjust it or start a discussion with you concerning it. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate that you want to ask before launching your nuclear arsenal, but it is not required. ◄► Tephra ◄► 06:51, January 15, 2016 (UTC)

Back to the original topic... I see other than a recent edit by you, Curses hasn't been touched in a couple years, and does appear to be written poorly. Sweep away. ◄► Tephra ◄► 07:00, January 15, 2016 (UTC)


 * Regarding the Charge-up Skills and Finishing Moves: they already have their own articles. Pryamus (talk) 09:43, January 15, 2016 (UTC)

Skills format
It seems we had this discussion before, but my example above is a bit outdated now due to how the styles have been adjusted. So I guess it should be like this:

◄► Tephra ◄► 06:33, January 19, 2016 (UTC)


 * The scheme above pretty much summarizes the standard that was in order until the recent revamp of skill infoboxes I started some time ago (already finished by now for D2 and D3, D1 waiting its turn). Due to 3 different authors editing the articles over time (you being the fourth), each term is encountered.


 * I personally vote for Lore (just sounds better than Description, as flavor text is taken from official D2 manual and describes background rather than gameplay) and In-game (a bit broader concept than General Information or Usage), but in actuality, either is fine. Also, Synergy is now a separate section from General Information. Pryamus (talk) 08:09, January 19, 2016 (UTC)

◄► Tephra ◄► 09:34, January 19, 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, as I also mentioned before, however you want to do it is fine. But if multiple authors are going in two different directions simultaneously, consistency will be hard to achieve. If you want to amend my example above (or create a new one) to something you both like, it will be much easier to make the articles uniform.
 * How's about a compromise? "Lore" sounds appropriate to me, but in-game sounds a bit...informal? What'd be a good synonym here? Brainwasher5 (talk) 13:50, January 19, 2016 (UTC)


 * Can't think of anything much better (like Details or Specifics), but I won't mind if you leave it as General Information (since that's pretty much what goes below). Pryamus (talk) 13:54, January 19, 2016 (UTC)
 * Fantastic. I'll get to work on standardization then. Brainwasher5 (talk) 01:51, January 20, 2016 (UTC)

New forums
Maybe. I am old and clunky (in internet years), so I like old and clunky things. What you call "modernization", I call... well no need to be impolite. Luckily for anyone who likes simplified eye candy, it's not really up to me (or at least, I don't take advantage of my de facto authority). If you can gather yourself some allies who also want a more modern forum, than a more modern forum you shall have. I suppose I can start a poll blog to sample the Diablo Wiki community and see what it desires. ◄► Tephra ◄► 21:31, February 5, 2016 (UTC)

Noteworthy information
Listing what an item doesn't do is pointless, there is a lot of stuff items don't do. Why should we note one insignificant thing the majority of items don't do? And yes, the medium/heavy speed modifier is quite insignificant even for items that actually do carry it. If the majority of items did have weight-type speed modifiers, I could get behind noting it on items that don't, but that is certainly not the case. ◄► Tephra ◄► 04:57, September 3, 2016 (UTC)

<font color="#900000">◄► Tephra ◄► 09:20, September 3, 2016 (UTC)
 * To those who take their Diablo gameplay super seriously, everything is significant. But considering that a casual player can play through the entire game without even noticing the speed penalty is what makes it insignificant. If you are trying to find out what armor doesn't have a speed penalty, systematically looking through all of the armor types is a very inefficient way of doing it. If you resorted to that because you had trouble finding the information on Movement speed, then what you should be demanding is better redirects, not superfluous information on articles that don't possess a certain minority trait. If you still think adding that is important and want to seek supporters, then go ahead and make a forum topic or comment on the Movement speed talk page.