User talk:DeludedTroll

From Hearthstone Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Artists[edit source]

Hi there! Re: Boneraptor, when adding artists, please add them to all the related pages: the card page, the artist page, and also Artist. This finishes the job and ensures the remaining work doesn't get overlooked by other editors. -- Taohinton (talk) 19:47, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I'll keep that in mind in the future. I guess it just slipped my mind to add it to related pages as well. --DeludedTroll (talk) 19:49, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Artists[edit source]

As a courtesy, I thought I'd let you know I've implemented a new system for the Artists page. You can read all about it on the talk page, but the gist is that the new automated system will save a ton of work and solve the problem of the many missing cards, but at the price of a less detailed display. As the only person besides me who has been consistently adding cards to the list in the last year, if you were interested in fixing and keeping up a detailed manual list like the one previously on Artists, we could move the old list to a subpage for you to update. I suspect you've better things to do with your time, but I wanted to make the suggestion since you've been putting the work in. -- Taohinton (talk) 04:07, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

That new system will certainly make things a lot easier in the future. I don't have any real interest in keeping the old version of the page, but thanks for the notification. --DeludedTroll (talk) 10:20, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Lore[edit source]

Hey, just wanted to say you've been doing a great job of writing up the lore for the new cards, as well as sourcing the art, of course. I've started adding a few bits here and there from the BlizzCon panel, but please don't let that put you off! -- Taohinton (talk) 09:57, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! --DeludedTroll (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Your opinion is desired[edit source]

Your opinion is desired on some upcoming style changes throughout the wiki. The changes are due to be implemented this Friday, so please add your thoughts now if you wish to have a say. -- Taohinton (talk) 03:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Ooozes[edit source]

Hey mang, if you're gonna write about a slime (Echoing Ooze), you might as well link it to the official Ooze art page. I just took the liberty of doing so, friend =). Just do Echoing Ooze to your page and you should be good! --Fritotimbagel

Well, I just think it's a tad unnecessary to say "This minion is the 4th ooze minion introduced in Hearthstone" when that can just be gleaned from looking at Ooze art. In cases like Street Trickster and Dirty Rat, they have unique properties that can be noted (first non-legendary neutral demon and first non-Spell Damage kobold, respectively) or in cases like the Tar minions from Un'Goro where they all share a common theme (1-attack Taunt minions with bonus attack on the opponent's turn), but in the ooze case it's easier to just link to Ooze art in the Lore section, if it has one. DeludedTroll (talk) 08:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikicommenting out "==Gallery==" sections for card pages?[edit source]

In the future, should "==Gallery==" section titles be wikicommented out when a card article is first created? I notice that the wikicomment tags are just going to be deleted anyways. It prevents us from having to go back into the article again and deleting the wikicomment tags. Aegonostic (talk) 20:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Maybe. I guess it's mainly because it looks a bit ugly to have a gallery only containing a broken link to a file that doesn't exist yet, but I suppose it's along the same lines as having a "Notes" or "Strategy" section only containing a simple stub tag. --DeludedTroll (talk) 06:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
For what it's worth I think the broken image links look a lot better than the stubs, so I can see the benefits either way. We can probably create a template that checks for the existence of an image and displays an alternate note if it's not there I guess. Technically I believe that puts more load on the site compared to a standard link, but it would probably remove some burden of these "required edits" when a new xpac drops. - jerodast (talk) 17:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Wanteds[edit source]

Hi, I'm puzzled by your deletion of WANTED, Wanted, and Wanted!. All three of theses are different styles of capitalisation for WANTED! and ease the site's navigation. You cannot expect everyone to type "WANTED!" into the search bar to get to that page, so having at least Wanted or WANTED would prevent readers from failing to find their desired destination. Quater (discuss) 22:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the search bar was case-insensitive, so if you typed in "Wanted!", WANTED! would still show up in the search results, but it looks like the search function has been acting weird lately. I can see why Wanted! would be a helpful redirect in that case, but I think WANTED and Wanted are unnecessary; if someone is searching for the WANTED! card, I think it's reasonable to expect them to search for the card's full name, including the exclamation mark.
EDIT: I don't agree with having redirects like vex crow; in Hearthstone card names, each word is almost always capitalized unless it's a word like "the" or "of". This is pretty much the standard for nearly all collectible cards in the game, so it should be apparent that "vex crow" is spelled "Vex Crow". WANTED! is a bit of an exception since it only consists of a single word and has unusual capitalization, being in all caps. --DeludedTroll (talk) 08:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
I can appreciate not needing redirects for pages like Vex Crow, but given "wanted" is one of the most popular words in the English language, preventing readers from being thrown onto a search result page with over 100 instances of the word "wanted" with none of the top results being the desired page, I think it's counter-intuitive to not have at least one redirect that is uncapitalised and unexclamatory. Additionally, what's your administrative take on making placeholder pages for all the upcoming reveals based on this? So far, every single name has been correct. I'm happy to make them all if I know I'm not gonna be wasting my time, having them be deleted as they're not official yet. Quater (discuss) 10:01, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Alright, after thinking about it some more, I suppose having "Wanted" and "Wanted!" as redirects makes sense. Don't think having "WANTED" as a redirect is needed in that case, though, but I suppose it doesn't matter much whether or not that one gets turned into a redirect as well.
About the placeholder pages: I don't actually know where HearthPwn got all of the card names; as far as I can tell, the official blog post with the card reveal schedules doesn't include any card names, and the only place I've found the list of card names is on HearthPwn itself. The names also don't seem to be 100% accurate; HearthPwn mentions "Wanted" when the card is actually named "WANTED!", and they point out themselves that "Cathedral Gargoyle" seems to be misspelled as "Cathedral Gargoyal". Personally I'd say we should wait and just keep adding cards to the wiki as they are revealed, instead of creating placeholder pages. --DeludedTroll (talk) 10:15, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
I've remade Wanted. If you type Wanted! into the search bar it already takes you there, so I don't think it's necessary. In regards to the HearthPwn cards: I believe the names were datamined, so HearthPwn themselves didn't misspell Gargoyle. Perhaps it'd be safe to make all but that one? Quater (discuss) 10:30, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
I'd kinda prefer either doing all of them or none of them for consistency's sake, and I'd strongly prefer waiting until the cards are officially revealed instead of relying on datamining. --DeludedTroll (talk) 10:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Tags[edit source]

Hi, you probably know a few tags that I don't, so in an attempt to document all of them, would you be able to add them to Template:Card_infobox/doc#Acceptable_tags? Cheers, Quater (discuss) 10:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't actually know most of the tags by heart; I did notice that I forgot to add Combo-related to the Acceptable tags table, but I can't say I know enough about the tags to notice if one of them is missing from the table or not. When adding tags to new card pages I mostly just tend to look at the pages for other cards with similar effects; for example, when adding the tags for Witch's Cauldron I copied the examples of Backroom Bouncer and Grand Crusader. --DeludedTroll (talk) 10:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)