Talk: Taohinton/Archive01

Archives

• Discussion
  • Current page
  • Archive 1
  • Archive 2

Topic 1

Hello, I just wanted to put my reply here in case you weren't checking Hearthstone_Wiki_talk:Community_portal#Adverts.

While we cannot change the placement of the the ads themselves, we've developed features like "Gamepedia blocks" to help mitigate their effect on the content area. You can use the blocks to help even out the appearance of the page. In terms of content, we definitely should not be having those ads. Should you ever see an inappropriate ad, please take a screenshot and send it to me at Community@gamepedia.com and I will see to it that it is taken care of immediately. I definitely appreciate and share your concern on that account :-) If you ever have any other concerns or questions please don't hesitate to leave me a message or to email. Btarsa (talk) 22:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Topic 2

Hey! Awesome job on the wiki. I really like what you did on Innkeeper’s Invitational. What are your thoughts on setting up a "competitive" section on the wiki? - Smokie (talk) 19:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey there, and thanks :) What did you have in mind - something along the lines of a listing of all major tournaments? I normally edit wherever and whenever inspiration (or wiki-compulsion) strikes, but anything's possible ;)

I should mention that I (already am and) will be pretty busy with seasonal business and pleasure for the next few weeks, so I probably won't be around much for a while. I will hopefully find my way back some time in the new year though ;) Oh, and Merry Xmas! -- Taohinton (talk) 22:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I should clarify that my question about the 'competitive' section wasn't rhetorical; I'd be happy to make something along those lines (free time and energy permitting) but to be honest I don't know a lot about that side of things. If you wanted to elaborate on what we might put there, and where I might find the relevant info, I'm sure it's something I could get around to. -- Taohinton (talk) 13:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

How you had a good vacation! You're really doing awesome things on the wiki! So if you've noticed User:Fluxflashor has been working on the competitive scene stuff (something he knows a ton about). Feel free to connect with him if he starts stepping on any toes :) - Smokie (talk) 02:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, please do! I'm hanging out on the HS Wiki IRC Channel #Hearthstonewiki on freenode, feel free to drop by there to yell at me if needed :) Fluxflashor (talk) 02:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey guys, and thanks :) You've done a great job so far Flux - and I don't think I'll be doing any yelling, but thanks for the invitation :P -- Taohinton (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Well that's no fun, and thanks! I have a lot of work to do to catch up to your edits ;) Fluxflashor (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Topic 3

"what are the numbers (eg. 2: 3: 4: 5: ) intended to signify?" They are the amount of chests with rewards you get in the Arena. 2, 3 or 5. I'm not sure if this was the appropriate place to respond to your question but i don't know where else to do so. Cya :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.73.40.22 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 9 January 2014‎

Thanks for getting back to me :) -- Taohinton (talk) 13:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Theme

I didn't hear back from you on the Admin noticeboard, but as suggested, I warmed up the site up a notch by changing the brown/black containers to a orangey/brown. I haven't made changes to the infoboxes yet as those values are hardcoded, and I'm going to have to go through those templates and get some css classes rolling so they aren't a pain to fix later on should the style get reworked. I also need to fix the borders on the homepage since they are too dark, alongside adding a tournaments box to it somehow. Care to share your opinion on the new look? Fluxflashor (talk) 14:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Frontpage Overhaul

Hey Taohinton! I'd love your input on the frontpage overhaul topic on the admin noticeboard when you get a chance. Thanks! -- Fluxflashor : (Talk) 04:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the message :) I do have a few thoughts, but unfortunately work and other things are keeping me very busy and very tired at the moment. As soon as I get the chance I'll add them to the discussion. I like the pictures tho! -- Taohinton (talk) 01:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

…to be clear, it's the intelligent design decisions that require the energy - the more trivial work is actually pretty good for unwinding ;) -- Taohinton (talk) 01:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Haha! I look forward to your comment soon(tm). -- Fluxflashor : (Talk) 02:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

My edit to Arena random prize possibilities for 2 wins

Hi, I'm the guy that added "1 Epic card" to the list of random prizes for 2 arena wins. I totally understand your skepticism about the validity of that, since as you say, it's so far out of line with everything else. Not having taken a screenshot I can't prove it, but I suppose the fact that I bothered to add it, and then came back to confirm it at least let's you know i'm not some random vandal. I was quite surprised, myself - which is why I came to the wiki to check the list of prizes because I didn't recall seeing that good of a prize for such a bad performance.

A possible explanation is that previous arena performance is considered when awarding prizes, as immediately before my 2-3 run, I had an uninterrupted string of about 6 runs with 4 or 5 wins each topped off with a final 11 win run. Besides the one epic card, the pack I opened had either 2 epics or an epic and a rare with the rest commons (I forget exactly - but it was crazy).

At any rate, the reason I bothered to spend my time on the edit and this follow-up is because I was appreciative that someone took the time to compile the list, which was of value to me, and I wanted to give back. Next time I'll be sure to take a screen shot - though I'm not sure that there is a single screen showing your record and the prizes (in other words it might not be possible to prove without a video - which I can do, actually, if it ever happens again).

Keep up the great work, and thanks!

--Kenny

Update: For the record, I went through my collection to see if I could identify which epic I won as a single prize or in the booster pack. It's complicated by the fact that a few days ago I opened a "box" (40 packs) of boosters and alot of the new cards from that were still marked "New". I can narrow it down to the "New" epics, though: Snake Trap, Mindgames, Preparation, Shield Slam, Gorehowl. It seems it was Gorehowl, but all I'm sure of is that it was one of those 4.

Hi Kenny! Thanks for the info. Trusting that you're certain it was an individual card rather than a card from a rewarded pack, I've adjusted the rewards description, and added a note about this specific point. Your report confirms my suspicion; that it's likely more a matter of probability than an absolute lock. However, it's possible it's a mix of the two, and it would take a huge amount of pretty focused testing to confirm either way, never mind work out the complete possible range at all levels.

Meanwhile, if any rarity is technically possible with any Key, I'm not sure how best to present the info in the table. It seems that in general the higher the rarity the less likely they are to be obtained, making some types, eg. golden legendary, almost impossible to obtain at low numbers of wins, eg. 0 wins, and yet possibly still theoretically possible - say as likely as picking all the correct numbers for the lottery - very, very unlikely, but still completely possible. On that basis we could list all rarities/golden/regular as being available at all levels, but that wouldn't serve very well to illustrate the general curve of the rewards, since we don't have % indications or anything like that (and have no data on which to base such things, either), and in fact would obscure the general trend entirely. In the absence of more precise data (which may eventually become available through mass data collection tech), we'll have to see what else gets reported. Perhaps we could put something like a 0.01% probability threshold on what data is added to the table?

Regarding previous runs, I tweeted Ben Brode about that and he confirmed it's not the case, which makes things a bit simpler to chart! I've added a note about that to the article too, as I'm sure it's something many consider at some point.

Thanks again for the contribution, and glad you've found the list helpful :) -- Taohinton (talk) 23:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Misinformation / Source?

Hi, excuse me but I haven't really into wiki before.
It appears that you are the source of some misinformation on Naxxramas pricing that has become widespread.

[Here is the link] to your(?) edit.
Can you link a direct source on the last wing being free?
I haven't found any information via Google suggesting it will be, aside from this wiki.
The official quotes I've found state that you must complete the first four wings to gain access to the last, not that you will be awarded the final wing for free.

It's a little late for changing it back to have any effect, as Blizzard should be announcing full pricing details shortly.

Thanks for any response you can give regarding this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.100.228 (talk • contribs) 05:22, 30 June 2014‎

A very good point! This wiki isn't the source of that idea though; the assumption seems to be fairly widespread based upon some very ambiguous official statements, with other sources such as Hearthpwn making the same interpretation as we have. There simply isn't any official clarification as to whether "get to open" means actually gaining access to the wing, or simply being allowed to purchase it.

At any rate, the point is valid, and I've changed the page accordingly. Thanks for pointing it out! -- Taohinton (talk) 11:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello!

As suggested by Benjamin Tarsa, I'd like to touch base with you and let you know I'll be working along side with you and User:Chaud. Here's a little background:

• I am an experienced MediaWiki administrator, and have founded WoW.Answers (http://wow.answers.wikia.com).
• I was invited to the Hearthstone beta, Mists of Pandaria beta, and Heroes of the Storm alpha.
• World of Warcraft always holds a special place in my heart, which is why I'd love to help you guys out!
• My specialties lie with template creation, CSS, general cleanup, and running MW bots

I hope to get a chance to speak with you in more detail in the future!

Have a great day! --Darkpsy3934 (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

RE

Thanks, we have a hard work to create boss pages, hero powers, minions, spells, weapons and upload golden cards :P Senescalzin 12:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Haha indeed we do :P Trying to get as much done now as possible, as I'll probably be at work when the adventure is actually released. Nice to see the goldens joining the party! -- Taohinton (talk) 12:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Expression of Admiration

You seem to do a lot of work around here! You have my undying respect. :-) Hopefully, my recent interest in the wiki hasn't caused you too much irritation. I used to be a significant contributor in World of Warcraft's early days, but never took a wik'etiquette class or what have you. --Jimdinventor (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much ^_^ It's definitely been a mountain of work getting the site together, but it's been a great project. Almost all the major work is now done, and after Curse has panned out things should be relatively quiet until the first expansion draws near! I might even get the time to actually play the game again…

Your interest in the wiki is welcome, and certainly hasn't been too disruptive ;) The wiki is what we make it, but I'm happy to help shape it into something solid, reliable and hopefully fairly well written! The strategy contributions are valued, since I'm not in a position to write them myself. -- Taohinton (talk) 23:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Heroes of the Storm

If you are interested in Heroes of the Storm access, could you please send your Battle.net id to me at sbruckner at curse dot com? Thank you. — oOeyes 01:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

FYI: Hearthsim IRC channel

Hi, I thought you may be interested by the #hearthsim channel on the Freenode IRC network. It's a channel I created for a Hearthstone simulator I've been working on but a few of us hang in there for more technical discussions about Hearthstone (both internals and theorycrafting). I'll be away next week but feel free to ping me (jleclanche) there either way if you decide to hang around. Adys (talk) 09:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

The duplicate data pages

*facepalm* ... yeah, I specifically asked just to have images imported. I'm working on a way to get a list of the remaining data pages to delete. I should be able to bot that.

Easier to do is the data page corrections. For that, I just need a list of what errors to correct so I can set up the bot.

And again, apologies for this mess. — oOeyes 03:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Haha well thanks for the note ;) As a result of these unexpected events, I've spent quite a while musing on how best to handle the relationship between Hearthpwn and the wiki in the future. Firstly, it turns out the unrequested data import has actually been helpful (once I'd finished wrapping my head around the many possible ways of handling it). This is because following the GvG reveals, a lot of announced card text got altered (prior to release), and also a number of typos on Hearthpwn's end got corrected. So the datapages I manually created based on that info over time became minorly incorrect in places, meaning the imported data has actually helped to set all that straight.

It therefore seems the best thing would be to keep the new datapages, and delete the old ones. The only issues are the typos, and the possibility of either abilities which I've added in the data being removed, or abilities I've intentionally left out being added (eg the word 'Taunt' in Black Knight doesn't mean he actually has Taunt, but according to the Hearthpwn data it does). The latter issues should be very few, and aren't going to cause any major problems. The typos I've noticed so far are using 'Mechanical' instead of 'Mech' for |subtype, and using 'Death Rattle' instead of 'Deathrattle' in |abilities. There might be more, of course ;)

I've also noticed a few datapages which still have |has_gold set to False, despite the golden images already having been uploaded. I'm not sure if it's just a few of these or a more substantial number.

Regarding the larger issue, ultimately my musings have led me to the conclusion that while I'm quite capable of manually importing and modifying the data for the site, importing our data straight from Hearthpwn en masse is probably a good thing, at least following the release of each new set of cards. My thoughts right now are that unless it's possible to have each burst of new card data uploaded fairly expediently (following reveals which may happen at stray and unpredictable times of day) it's probably still going to be necessary for me to initially setup the data manually, or else the wiki would fall behind developments; I managed to maintain a pretty cutting edge repository of information over the course of the GvG reveals, which is a standard I'd like to repeat with new releases. Once all the wording changes, etc, have been made, a big import like this one would work to iron out any adjustments since then. However, Hearthpwn have changed their card id/database numbers over the course of the run-up to GvG, meaning even if I'd made numbered datapages, we would still have had to delete the originals in order to import the data, and of course correct the typos. Assuming this isn't too much work, it seems like a decent model going forward.

There are a couple of other points to tie up, but it's nearly 5am and I have a concert to perform tomorrow, so I'll leave it at that for now! Thanks again for the help. -- Taohinton (talk) 04:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I managed to get a list together of the data pages with duplicate titles. The bot is chewing away on the ones without an ID number. Hopefully, there won't be any collateral damage. If it finishes up quickly enough, I'll get it fixing the typos identified so far.

As for HearthPwn imports, that'll be something I'll have to discuss. The import of data pages was a particular surprise because I was told we weren't going to be doing that anymore; the community was actually proving to be faster. In fact, I was planning to discuss rolling the data pages into the content pages. I was just waiting for the slower time of year to roll around so I wouldn't have to rush such a sensitive job. But if you would prefer, I'll see if regular imports can be arranged again. — oOeyes 05:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, that was my approach too, and I agree in general, but as I've outlined above the imports could be usefully employed following each major addition of new cards just to tidy up the data and ensure it actually matches the in-game data. It's also quite a good way to catch typos like forgetting to list abilities - easily done when you're typing out new pages for 135 cards.

Ideally, I could just wait until after the adventure/expansion had released before then creating the data on the wiki, ensuring I copied the finalised info... but of course by then the wiki would be weeks out of date, and the lack of cards would also make writing about the new content in any way shape or form pretty impossible. So I have to import the data prior to that, but then it of course changes. Once we reach that point, it's either a matter of importing the data and running a bot to delete duplicates and correct typos, or a matter of me spending a few hours going manually through all the data, either re-copying it all from scratch, or checking each bit to make sure it matches. I'm leaning toward the former option; it's far less prone to human error and saves a lot of time and effort. Additionally, having the datapages numbered would allow us to import/update images with no trouble; otherwise we'd need to manually move each image to the correct name afterwards, overwriting all previous versions, or download then re-upload to the correct name.

One more botting job: every uncollectible card page I've checked so far has had has_gold set to False (they should all be True). I suspect it's just the uncollectibles this variable has been automatically set for. If you could set them all to True, that would be great. -- Taohinton (talk) 07:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Has_gold bot job is done. To be extra sure, I'm running touch (resave) over the card pages in case they're slow to update.

As for the import discussion, I think that's something I'll tackle after the holidays now that we're so close. I think we're going to be stuck waiting on the redirect equality issue too and will just have to pick one of the workarounds for the time being. We don't have any leads at the moment on why the setting change is not functioning. — oOeyes 21:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Minions with no quotes?

Why do some of the minion pages not display the quotes said by the minion? (Annoy-o-Tron is an example). Is it deliberate, or is it because people simply haven't gotten around to adding them yet (in which case I can add them)? Thanks, 115.64.44.127 07:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

It's simply because no-one has added them yet. Adding them would be a great contribution to the site if you feel inclined. You can see the format we normally use on the other pages (e.g. Defender of Argus#Quotes), and you might find Hearthhead.com handy for replaying soundbites, although their transcriptions aren't always correct. -- Taohinton (talk) 11:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Removal

Fair enough, "removal" is a broad and variable concept. In the broadest terms in the right situation, a single damage can be "removal", but I don't think most people think of Shiv as a removal card :) Whereas in a vacuum, Hex, Assassinate, etc would be categorized as removal by most. I suppose I phrased it as I did to imply something about "hard" and "soft" removal, but perhaps that's a distinction best left for the dedicated page.Jerodast (talk) 00:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Shamans

Well, your own 2013 comment on the shaman talk page does a great job laying out the evidence for either way :P There didn't seem to be a conclusion reached there; my view is if the official game guide starts with "Shaman are..." then it's certainly not improper. But if you want to stick to the -s variant, I won't stop you! - jerodast (talk) 20:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Heh, I wondered if you'd notice/noticed that ;) As I stated back then, Blizzard's use is inconsistent, and 'shamans' is used in-game in places. It seems clear the correct English plural is 'shamans', and that's certainly the way I've been leaning since writing that - I was also intentionally open in my presentation at the time, rather optimistically expecting I might actually get a reply from someone! Ultimately, since Blizzard's use is at best inconsistent, I can't see any reason to deviate from the 'universally accepted' dictionary form: shamans.

Regarding your other posts, I've been unwell for a while and so far less present on the wiki than usual. Hopefully I'll soon get the chance to reply to some of your other queries/points. -- Taohinton (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey, no worries and hope you're feeling better, thanks for being so attentive now that you're back online! There's plenty to play with even when there're a few things I'm not sure about, so no pressure.

Sorry for not filling the void after your shaman post :) I think I actually read it well before Hearthstone. I probably didn't see the need to reply because personally I'm pretty much fine with just leaving it open-ended! I don't mind two versions being "correct" in the Warcraft context, so your statement that it is used both ways seemed like a fine "conclusion" to me haha.- jerodast (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

RE: Golden Undertaker

Thanks. For the Golen Udertaker, I used the Internet Explorer and open the Hearthpwn. The golden cards in IE of Hearthpwn are gifs. Then I download the gif image and open it in Paint (Paint only opens the image without the animation) and convert it to PNG. Sorry for bad english. Cheers! Senescalzin 17:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I thought probably so :) Thanks for the reply! -- Taohinton (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for stalking

I figure when I start to feel like I'm wiki-stalking someone, it's time to apologize for it; I promise it's not my intent! There are times when I feel like being proactive, and other times when my attention is only drawn back to pages when I get change notifications. If only we had more editors it would be more apparent I'm responding to changes in general, not yours specifically :) - jerodast (talk) 20:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

That's absolutely fine :) I'm very familiar with the feeling myself. As the admin for the site, I've had to stop worrying about people feeling like I'm picking on them; patrolling edits for the best of the wiki is my job. That said, I do tend to leave a short time after an edit before I edit/rework/revert it, partly in case the editor is still editing the page, and partly to reduce friction.

At any rate, it's no problem with me :) I also appreciate the discussion and comments regarding changes, especially when it's something I've been working on recently. -- Taohinton (talk) 17:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Heading/Subject Ordering

You corrected my ordering on a page so, is there a particular order that these need to go in? (i.e. Strategy -> Lore -> Quotes ->Trivia) I'm new to doing wiki stuff and couldn't really find a guideline when I started adding lore and quotes and not all pages have the same ordering. If there is an absolute rule then I'm willing to go through pages and correct them as I find them. Also any other guide rules to follow like what to add, what to link, how much copy/pasting from wowpedia is allowed, etc. Thanks. --Beanchagbear (talk) 16:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I found the help pages and looked over them but they didn't answer the universal ordering preferences, how quotes should be handled (some quotes have different ordering, capitalization, punctuation, onomatopoeia usage, trigger quotes vs effect quotes, etc.), and other stuff like that. Since that's mostly what I have been looking at and it's what I like correcting to make every page have a universal standard; if you could give me the standard, I will work on it some. --Beanchagbear (talk) 18:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi there! First of all, good job on your edits so far :)

The preferred order for page sections is: Lead section -> How to get -> Notes -> Strategy -> Quotes -> Lore -> Trivia -> Artist -> Gallery -> Patch changes -> References -> External links. It's a combination of standard wiki guidelines and what makes the most sense for Hearthstone specifically.

As regards quote sections, the current standard is roughly what you've been using. As for headers, 'Summon', 'Attack' and 'Death' seem good (and in that order). Regarding finer points of formatting, and other quote headers, no precise standard has yet been established, with different editors taking different approaches. You're welcome to attempt to establish a good standard.

You seem to be doing a good job of matching standards as demonstrated on similar pages, and this is usually the best way of keeping the site consistent. In general consistency is a great goal, although in the case of less boilerplate pages you'll find variations due in part to standards themselves being in the process of development; most of the standards on the site have arisen naturally through iteration and evolution, and this is a healthy approach.

It seems from your edits you've picked up most of the conventions for art, lore entries, etc - Let me know if you have any more specific questions. -- Taohinton (talk) 03:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Card categories

So many of the cards have either Classic or GvG categories but it looks like Naxx cards are listed as Classics and BRMs as GvG. Is this intentional? The category states that Classics are just cards before GvG but shouldn't the expansions get their own categories? --Beanchagbear (talk) 23:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Technically the cards from adventures are not full new "sets", so the argument goes that that makes Naxx a subset of Classic, and same for BRM in GvG. Personally I think that's very silly and we should just categorize them distinctly. If we must put a note at the top of each Adventure Set page clarifying that it's actually a subset of another set, so be it, but categorizing them according to only the absolute top-level set breakdown is just confusing. - jerodast (talk) 03:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The original design was based on the explicit difference between adventures and expansions, which in theory might have seen several small adventures all within the main theme of each overarching expansion. This is also convention with World of Warcraft, where each expansion contains numerous content patches, dungeons, raids, world events, etc, each of which takes place within the time period and theme of the expansions. For this reason, it is standard to consider expansions as the major 'chapters' or divisions in a game's ongoing continuum of additions.

However, for Hearthstone that has turned out not to be case. While adventures are far smaller additions to the main game than expansions, the distinction is not really significant, and in terms of era and changes to the available card pool, there really is no important difference. Adventures are also expansions to the game, simply of a smaller/slightly different kind than the 'expansions'. I'd therefore agree there is no reason we shouldn't break them up into their own categories.

Regarding the implementation of this, removing the concept of adventures as sub-expansions means we probably don't need to also put individual pages in Category:Adventure cards/Category:Expansion cards, since the adventures and expansion categories can themselves become part of those categories.

For clarity, since all cards have their set specified in the card data, the categories currently serve absolutely no purpose, other than to decorate the bottoms of the pages. The only manually-added categories which do have any use are the art categories, which I'm actually planning on phasing out once all the BRM work has been sorted anyway. -- Taohinton (talk) 03:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Stacking infoboxes

This should all be ready to go, barring any errors I missed in the limited testing I was able to do today.

Reposting here the way this works, since I had to tweak things from the early concept to get this kludge to fully work:

• On a page called "Encounter/Boss name 1", you'd just have "{{Card infobox|datapage=Boss name 1|setdata=<includeonly>no</includeonly>|targetpage={{BASEPAGENAME}} }}".
• On a page called "Encounter/Boss name 2", you'd just have "{{Card infobox|datapage=Boss name 2|setdata=<includeonly>no</includeonly>|targetpage={{BASEPAGENAME}} }}".
• On the actual page called "Encounter", it'd start with "{{/Boss name 1}}{{/Boss name 2}}".

— oOeyes 07:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Inline openable references

Can we get something like on http://what-if.xkcd.com/ where when you click a reference, instead of jumping to the end of the page, a textbox opens inline where you can read, select text and click links? This would be hugely beneficial for the Advanced rulebook rewrite - you could look at references inline without having to lose your place and disrupt the flow of reading. --Patashu (talk) 04:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea :) I've copied this to the Admin noticeboard, to get the attention of the Curse tech liaison. -- Taohinton (talk) 16:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Xinhuan thought of another we need - collapsible sections. Something with a Title and a [show] button you click and it shows all the text inside, then you can click [hide] to shut it again. It would be used to hold stuff like long examples that break the flow of the document. --Patashu (talk) 10:00, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I've actually been wanting precisely this for a long time now. Since it's not something I've seen on Wikipedia, etc, I'd always assumed it was beyond tech constraints, but I've passed the request on. If not there's probably some way we could rig it up, as long as it isn't too clunky. -- Taohinton (talk) 00:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

#hearthsim on Freenode for Hearthstone Science

Just so you know, the #hearthsim channel on the Freenode IRC server is where I've been organizing most of my science lately, with help from Xinhuan and other regulars. You're welcome to come and idle in there if you want to listen in or help out! You are one of the experts, after all. If you don't have an IRC client, you can use https://webchat.freenode.net/ to log into it. --Patashu (talk) 23:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite :) I'm actually already a (grim) patron of that channel, I've just been too busy to spend much time there the last few weeks. As mentioned in the project, I'm still busy with RL stuff atm, but hopefully I'll get the time to drop in before too long. -- Taohinton (talk) 00:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Eager to get the advanced rulebook rewrite into 'official' status

Any thoughts on when the advanced rulebook rewrite can replace the advanced rulebook on the site? It's now technically correct and documented in every way it needs to be, so the only changes left to make are things that make it clearer or easier to understand. But since it is a massive improvement over the old advanced rulebook in terms of flow and correctness already, maybe it should be replaced now and tweaked? Curious as to your thoughts. --Patashu (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there's any reason to delay any longer. I've spent a few hours adjusting formatting, phrasing, typos, caps, etc. although not comprehensively. I'd still like to go through it in more depth, and perhaps I will get round to that at some point. But in the meanwhile, it's now grown to be something not only far more usable than the 'working out' version, but also more comprehensive.

I've therefore transplanted it into the live article. Good job, and congratulations! :P

There was one section I removed, since it's obviously a to-do list, from the playing/summoning a minion section:

TODO: Videos like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1758zVywbg&feature=iv&src_vid=H1758zVywbg&annotation_id=annotation_160220901#t=1m12.2s lend support to the idea that everything before "Battlecry Phase" is one Phase (with a special 'force state update' inside of it) or a similar construct. I am postponing rewriting this section like that until I figure out what, exactly, it means. (Seeing Illidan+KJ mortally wound a minion but the minion not die until after a starving buzzard/one-eyed cheat/undertaker triggers would probably force my hand, though!)

TODO: Show that death processing happens after the Secret Activation Phase but before the After Summon Phase. Prove that Warsong Commander is in the Secret Activation Phase without any special priority.

-- Taohinton (talk) 04:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Whoooo, awesome! :D Glad to have your blessing, Taohinton :) --Patashu (talk) 06:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

By the way, http://hearthstone.gamepedia.com/Order_of_play is now broken because there's no 'Order of play' section in the new Advanced rulebook. --Patashu (talk) 06:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)?

Thanks. I'm planning on going through all the links and related terms at some point, to make the info as accessible as possible. -- Taohinton (talk) 17:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Overlinking

I think I was going for "once per paragraph, if the paragraphs are pretty long", but you're probably right haha. In my defense, there were certainly mentions I chose not to link for that reason :) - jerodast (talk) 19:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Haha it's definitely a matter of personal judgement :) As a rule I would say "once per section", but if it's a long section it's fine to link it once at top and bottom, etc. In some cases the emphasis justifies linking more than this, such as if a card is re-mentioned in a specific example (so it's easier for readers to mouse over and read the card text) or more rarely if a key word is being very specifically emphasised. Partly it's thinking what the reader will see when they read the article; usually they only need to be presented with a link once. However, readers may jump to the section of interest, so once per section (assuming they're not all single-line sections) seems reasonable. Also, with long articles it's reasonable not to make them scroll back up the page to find the previous link if they forget what the term means. Linking the same term any more than necessary is definitely to be avoided, though.

As ever, I'm not simply changing your uses to match my own personal tastes (even if it seems that way!), only adjusting things when they're clearly (in my mind) overlinked :) -- Taohinton (talk) 20:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

No worries! I think I saw you undo my double link in ADJACENT SENTENCES on Razorgore's page so clearly my judgement was not at 100%...chalk that one up to the late night :) - jerodast (talk) 20:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Face Hunter, you didn't miss it - it wasn't there until I wrote it, just now ;) -- Taohinton (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, nice :) - jerodast (talk) 20:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Special:ActiveUsers doesn't work

Special:ActiveUsers doesn't show any users. Is it a caching issue or should I contact somebody? Does it work for you? -- Karol007 (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not working for me, either. I suppose it might be temporary, and fix itself sooner or later; otherwise feel free to post a message for the tech liaison on the Admin noticeboard. -- Taohinton (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

RE and Question

No problem, sorry for creating that fake article, I saw that "card" image in a group of Facebook. Also, there are lots of fake cards in that Facebook group.

I have a question, just wanna know how can I receive Admin powers in this wiki? --Senescalzin 19:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The best way I know is to consistently and constructively contribute to the wiki. Why do you ask? There's not really a lot you can do with admin powers you can't as a regular user. -- Taohinton (talk) 18:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)