User talk:Pcj/Archive 4

{{Stub/Notorious}}

Stub/Notorious is not subject speedy deletion stub policy, don't ask me how that came to be, but after conferring with another admin the articles for Blizzard forum posters will remain. --GRYPHON^tc 16:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

OK. --Pcj 16:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Speedydeleting Talent Pages

It is unnecessary to put the speedydelete tag on articles related to undeveloped articles for in-game abilities and talents, as you are doing. Instead, please us the {{Stub/Ability}} tag so they can be developed further. -- TUSVA ~ T | C 18:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The marked articles already have the {{Stub/Ability}} tag on them and have not been updated in quite some time. This is per WW:SD. --Pcj 18:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Which states that articles can should only be SD'd if "The page has never had any content, especially if it appears that it will never have any content", the latter of which is highly untrue, as I know there are a few contributors working on filling out the ability and talent pages. It makes sense to keep these stub'd so contributors are more aware of them needing work (through Stub cats, etc) rather than leaving gaping holes in the Wiki. -- TUSVA ~ T | C 18:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, a red link on the articles that link to them (and in Special:Wantedpages) would be more of an alert that something's missing content. In either case, no content is lost with the deletion of the page, and if people want to put content there, fine. But pages which have been marked "stub" for more than a month seems to indicate that no one's working on it. --Pcj 18:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, looking at the contributions for who started many of the articles have gone on to contribute to other content and have just left them as stubs. I believe red links are more appropriate for content needed than simply a stub. --GRYPHON^tc 18:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

There is more lost from deleting them then there is gained (the history of the article, the categorization, etc). They've been categorized and already linked in many pages, there is no reason to delete them as they are a permanent element of the game. If we were talking about the content the SD was designed for (extraneous guild pages, personal pages, etc), then I'd support it. As is, I see no reason to completely remove talent and ability articles that are stubbed. -- TUSVA ~ T | C 18:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

History is usually confined to 1-3 edits on these articles, because they are stubs. Categorization is flimsy at best, and can be easily re-added by proper use of templates in addition to content (bots add categories all the time). If they're so important as to be linked to in many pages, then they should have content. SD was designed to reduce clutter, which includes stubbed pages without content, as the policy says. --Pcj 18:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

That's irrelevant, you're still not gaining anything by just blowing away articles related to permanent abilities and talents in the game that will inevitably be worked on, perhaps sooner than you know. They're hardly clutter, and the time taken to go through and remove them could be better spent improving them or focusing on the real clutter of the Wiki. -- TUSVA ~ T | C 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't call removing an article with 2 categories and no content blowing away. --GRYPHON^tc 19:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I've seen no proof that stubbed articles get edited faster than "wanted" articles. The latter seems more logical to me to edit...the blazing red link always indicates that something's missing, whereas a blue link (even though the destination page is a stub) makes people think content lies within. In any case, in the absence of proof, I'm going to continue until the policy changes. --Pcj 19:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I've seen no proof that red articles get more attention either. If anything, they result in a knee-jerk reaction to throw a stub in there, and we're back where we started. My point is that a small amount of existing information is better than none at all, and the time could be better spent improving articles or focusing on actual clutter. /shrug That's all I have left to say on it, really. :P -- TUSVA ~ T | C 19:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The burden of proof doesn't lie on me to prove that "wanted" articles are edited faster, since I'm not asking you to do anything. I've seen several of the articles deleted created with new content after being stagnant for several months marked as stubbed. My edits comply with policy. --Pcj 19:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I say yell at people creating pages simply to Stub them. If they are linked somewhere then with the use of the Loot/Quest Template people can quickly get to the article on WoWhead, Thottbot, or Alla. In my opinion, stubs should be saved for pages left unfinished by the person who initially created it. Instead of making stubs, or marking with speedydelete, I took an initiative to try and fill the pages.
 ∙ Zurr  Talk ∙ Contr 19:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Speedydelete Spam

Me again. A few things...

• Location pages: (Examples: Pool of Tears, Misty Valley, Andilien Estate). All of these are linked from multiple pages, and some have a short description, all of which have a screenshot of the location. These are all MORE than enough to constitute a stub, not SD spam.
• Mob/Creature pages: Is there any sort of consistency you're following at all? Examples: You SD  [Great White Kodo] but stub Searing Roc. You SD Stonelash Flayer but stub Fel'dan. You stub Shore Strider but SD Prairie Wolf Alpha. All of these I mentioned are linked from other articles.

I'm sure you'll be hearing more from me as you continue to spam SDs. -- TUSVA ~ T | C 14:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The more pages they're linked from, the more likely it is someone will see the red link if/when they are deleted...if someone's going to put up a screenshot and call it a page you might as well redirect the page to the image, especially since those stubs have been there so long. For your second point, look at the edit before mine. If it's more than a month earlier and has already been stubbed, I put up an SD. Otherwise, if it needs a stub or has been edited considerably within a month, I edit it appropriately. --Pcj (T•C) 14:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

1)Many of the location pages have more than the screenshot, and your logic about intentionally making red links is contradictory to encouraging contribution, which is the entire point of a Wiki.

2)No where in WW:SD policy does it state it has to be edited within a month otherwise be deleted. I completely contest that arbitrary method of deciding what gets tagged. Using that level of thinking, we could decimate half the wiki because an article hasn't been touched in a month, regardless of the content. -- TUSVA ~ T | C 14:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the stubs certainly aren't working at encouraging contribution, the theory is that during casual browsing a reader is more likely to see a red link than browsing stubs. The month limit is my own determination based upon the policy, which says "The page has never had any content, especially if it appears that it will never have any content". To me, a month is ample time to expect someone to finish an article marked "stub" and which has at best a sentence, maybe a picture, and a few templates which were thrown on there by bots. Otherwise, it's fairly safe to assume the article has been abandoned. --Pcj (T•C) 14:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The entire point of a stub is to mark it for further work. Assuming "casual browsers" are going to contribute to an empty article rather than a stubbed one is illogical. The amount of effort to throw in a bit more information to an article that ALREADY EXISTS is much less than going through and creating one from scratch, using local templates, and policies, etc etc. Which do you think a "casual browser" is more likely to contribute to? The one that's already built and needs a bit more pieces of info or one that's completely blank?

Using your logic, we would just delete EVERY article that hadn't been touched in a month if it wasn't complete because it'd be "abandoned". Again, that flies in the face of the goal of community contribution. Some articles may be updated fifteen times a day, others once every other month. That's the nature of the beast. -- TUSVA ~ T | C 14:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't mark large stubbed pages as SD, so no, we wouldn't delete EVERY article with my logic. The point is stubs aren't getting updated and have no content. WW:SD explicitly allows for this. See WW:SD#Why "Speedy deletion"? --Pcj (T•C) 14:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The reality is a stubbed page is more likely to get updated than an empty one. It might not happen in the 30 days that you have arbitrarily decided a page is "getting updated" is, however, it doesn't mean the page should be reset. I can understand doing mass stubs, but spamming SD's is not constructive to the Wiki and basically creates more work for zero benefit. -- TUSVA ~ T | C 14:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want to change the policy, go ahead and propose it. My edits are logically sound to me and comply with policy. --Pcj (T•C) 15:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I will actually propose an amendment to the policy, shortly. I'm not claiming that you're violating it, I'm claiming that you're abusing it. -- TUSVA ~ T | C 15:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, just remember the admin who manages the speedy delete category always has final decision whether to actually delete the article or not. I'm simply marking pages which do not have content. --Pcj (T•C) 15:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm very well aware of that. What you're doing is basically creating a TON of unnecessary work for the admins to have to comb through the piles of SD spam you've created to decide what's valid and what isn't because you've arbitrarily decided it "has no content" and is "abandonded". -- TUSVA ~ T | C 15:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I have reasonable criteria for putting up SD tags and have been agreed with by an admin before (see above discussion, n.b. Gryphon's remarks), so I'm merely continuing. If they ask me to stop, I will. The process is hardly out of control or unreasonable. --Pcj (T•C) 15:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I see quite a few I personally won't be deleting. I think some SD tags are bit excessive. I don't mind deleting something that just has a stub and cats, but if there is some sort of content like an images or lore snippet, info that people did some work to contribute, I don't think they should have been tagged. I think SD policy needs some tweaking. --GRYPHON^tc 15:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

OK. --Pcj (T•C) 15:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Battlegroup

By this page I see you have been busy. What does it matter if a battlegroup box is put on a guild page? The reader can still come into the page without ever seeing the server page. Yes it's redundant but it rounds out our guild page nicely. Surely you have better things to do.--Drain 00:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought it was placed there by mistake; it didn't provide any added navigation bonus. --Pcj (T•C) 00:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Change to APB/Row

What was the purpose of your change there? Parameters 5 and 6 (region and server) are never blank, so {{{11|{{{6|{{{5|}}}}}}}}} causes the {{#if:...}} to always return true. Can you give me an example of the negative behavior you were trying to fix? User:DarkRyder/Sig 00:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This. (also this and this.) I'm thinking includeonly tags on the class row pages themselves might work. --Pcj (T•C) 00:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Those are created through use of the {{#ifexist:...}} parser function. Trying to get templates which use it off the broken links page completely is likely to be more effort than it's worth, wouldn't you think? Yes, the Row template could be fixed by <includeonly>-ing it and all the class-specific templates (and I'll probably do that for all the APB templates, anyway), but templates like {{grc}} actually rely on the broken-link behavior in order to work. User:DarkRyder/Sig 00:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't need to rely on that, a simple #switch parser function might work...though I haven't bothered going through and figuring out how {{Grc}} works. In any case, APB should be easily fixed, and removing red links (and/or making them blue) where possible is always good. --Pcj (T•C) 00:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting ready to fix the APB templates now, but {{grc}} is... complicated. When you say "red links", you're referring to the Wanted Pages, yes? Links to those "false" pages shouldn't exist elsewhere. User:DarkRyder/Sig 00:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. --Pcj (T•C) 01:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, the APB ones have been wrapped. I've been wanting to try to make a new version of {{grc}} which takes better advantage of the new parser functions. It may take me a couple of weeks to get to it, but when I do, I'll also look into keeping it from spamming the Wanted pages. User:DarkRyder/Sig 01:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sounds good. If you need any help, let me know. --Pcj (T•C) 01:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Vash, kel, etc. navigation boxes

So, any reason for removing the top navigation boxes? the pages are pretty inaccesible now that you removed them.

So, unless you have a better alternative, i recommend putting them back.

Also, please refrain from editing user pages, use the talk page in case any modifications need to be made. User:CrazyJack/Sig 07:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I recommend moving them back to their original pages, Kel'Thuzad and Kel'Thuzad (tactics). The template was pure evil. I doubt Pcj did so without some support from an admin or two. iirc, there wasn't much support for the template, period. --User:Sky2042/Sig 07:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

There was support, and there was opposition, but no general consensus made and the subject moved to the archives. User:CrazyJack/Sig 08:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Generally, and so far as I've seen, proposals without consensus are considered failed proposals. But this is what I've seen; may be different than what you've seen. --User:Sky2042/Sig 08:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The template was not standardized and was causing a number of red links. All other boss pages had the quotes, loot, and strategy all on the Boss (tactics) pages. Standardizing those bosses to match eliminated the need for the template. The better alternative is already implemented, see the top of the respective boss pages. --Pcj (T•C) 12:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the message Pcj! --(Shaher 17:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC))

Indeed, thank you for the welcoming message, much appreciated --Shiryo 13:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Quest Chains

I'm still trying to figure out this whole wiki thing but I think I (hopefully!) realized the proper way now. Sorry! Pinko 21:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the welcome Pcj! --Ahimah 17:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Laurlybot tags on mobs

Hey Pcj. Some of the Azuremyst mobs you tagged for Laurlybot to replace were almost completely filled out, only missing some attack info that Laurlybot couldn't get anyway. Please check the content of the page before adding the laurlybot tag. For an example see the old Root Trapper page. It has everything that Laurlybot would put on there, plus some background. On the ones I noticed, I removed the mob stub and put in an ability stub for the abilities section, as that is all that is missing for these mobs - hopefully this will help avoid confusion in the future. --Jiyambi t || c 19:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Ability isn't the correct stub for that, but the page is also missing drops, and the actual information Laurlybot would remove is minimal. --Pcj (T•C) 19:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, should I put a mob stub in that area? Personally for this type of mob I would rather just remove the drop and abilities sections, the mob is so simple that they aren't really needed. I still don't think that mobs which have this much info should just be blown away. And honestly I hate Laurlybot's generated drops sections. But that's just me. My request stands, but if you really feel it should be replaced then go ahead. --Jiyambi t || c 23:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is any appropriate stub for sections of mob articles except Stub/Mob, but I agree that the ability section is probably best reserved for boss mobs. I wouldn't put the basic melee there, anyway, it's rather obvious and makes it look even more incomplete. You're right, though, WoWWiki should be more than just another database site, the history is good. --Pcj (T•C) 23:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I changed the three articles I was concerned with and added their notable drops. Hope they are satisfactory now. Thanks again for your consideration. --Jiyambi t || c 23:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Should be fine. --Pcj (T•C) 23:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again :) I am just going to remove the ability sections then for those mobs. If the mob has some sort of special ability, it would be useful to note, but for basic melee - maybe only mention if it is a particularly hard hitter or something. --Jiyambi t || c 00:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Rogues Do It From Behind

Rogues Do It From Behind is a L70ETC song that is not just the word 'Dufr'. You asked.--SWM2448 17:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I know what it was, it just wasn't worth keeping with that content alone. --Pcj (T•C) 17:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome!

And thanks for the reply to my question too. Hope to see you around. :) -- Dorvelle 20:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)