User talk:Prof. Torr

Done

http://fonline2238.net/wiki/index.php?title=Weakness&curid=6300&diff=21290&oldid=21289 Lets talk about this. 1) "when in doubt about any aspect of any article, use the discussion page to ask your questions, not the article itself LOL" It's not really a question. It's more like information for visitors. I let them know, that info is not entirely correct. In fact, we provide them most recent info we have, so they can find out, for them selves. And maybe, one day, post update on wiki. When speaking about it, devs should have put "Outdated" on every page, after a wipe and massive update. How about a link to discussion page saying: "Some information on this page are a subject of discussion on discussion page" 2) "To ensure the successful healing of an n-level player's weakness, the healer's Doctor skill must be higher than or equal to 10%×n." It might be my poor english, but it feels like i have no chance, of healing weakeness when my DOC skill is lower, than 10%xN. 3) And for the "question" on http://fonline2238.net/wiki/Talk:Weakness you can just put those informations, to articles, where they belong. 1) "It's not really a question" If it does not provide the reader with any information whatsoever, it is superfluous and should be removed from the article, irrespective of whether it is a question or a statement, or whatever. 2) To ensure = to make sure or certain. Allow me to paraphrase this sentence for you: 'If you want to be 100% certain that your attempt to heal someone's weakness is successful, you need to make sure that your Doctor skill is ≥ 10% multiplied by the level of that person. Otherwise, your attempt might be unsuccessful.' 3) What information? The first piece is already there (implied by the word 'ensure'); the second one is not worth mentioning. Imagine what would happen if we were to enumerate ALL the factors that do NOT matter at all as far as healing goes! The article would become extremely unclear and confusing. As a rule of thumb, if some piece of information is not relevant to something, it's probably not a very good idea to include it in the article on that something. Prof. Torr 15:33, 5 April 2012 (CEST) Please, come to #2238wiki to discuss things. Ronillon (talk) 15:35, 29 May 2012 (CEST) Done. Hi, don't know what is wrong with red links. They will turn blue, sooner or later. Ronillon (talk) 20:08, 29 May 2012 (CEST) There are 282 'wanted pages' already, why add new ones? Wouldn't it make much more sense to write an article BEFORE linking to it? Prof. Torr (talk) 20:48, 29 May 2012 (CEST) Special:WantedPages are there, because there are missing articles on the wiki. Sometimes, because of wrong spelling, or because of non-consistency in the in-game naming. Anyway, nothing bad happens even if there were thousands of them. I just link things, that i think should be linked. Sometimes that thing does not have it's page at that time. But will have when I or someone else writes that article. It often takes time and is dependant on other pages/game mechanics to be tested. Red links are nothing bad, sure, but they are nothing good either. I would suggest avoiding them whenever possible simply because they serve no purpose. Prof. Torr (talk) 14:21, 30 May 2012 (CEST) You do not seem to understand, that those texts on the beginning of the page in italic are "IN-GAME DESCRIPTIONS". I copy them, as they are. So please, do not alter them, unless they were corrected/changed in/game. The fact, that they have tons and tons of flaws (Language, game mechanics, spelling, common sense, you name it) is for another debate, preferably with someone from dev team. Who can correct these. I admit, that while/when gives me really a grief. To be honest after using Google.com im even more sure, that my version is right. My native language is Czech, and we have only past, present, furute timing in the sentences, so this is probably the source of problems. I'm not sure, what exactly you mean by "BE CONSISTENT" i tried to maintain consistency with Effects descriptions on Stimpak and other medicines ex.(Immediate: +4 to Current Hit Points) 1) Not any more. They once were nothing but duplicates of in-game descriptions but only because there was nobody willing to correct them. Now they are more than that - they have all been revised and corrected. It all started about 4 months ago, try to keep up. 2) http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhileVsWhen/dkbxg/post.htm 3) You used the phrase 'current hit points' in the table whereas in the article you used the phrase 'hit points.' I see no problem with either of the two, but once you decide which one to use within any given article, use it consistently throughout it. Prof. Torr (talk) 14:21, 30 May 2012 (CEST) "There's 447 'wanted pages' to be taken care of, so let's get this thing started. Prof. Torr (talk) 15:03, 22 June 2012 (CEST)" Before you go all crazy with the red links "fixing", you should stop to think if some of those red links should exist. If not, you should just get rid of the internal link, and not make a useless article page. --Ganado (talk) 18:40, 22 June 2012 (CEST) Get rid of it? So that Ronillon can add it back again? I don't think so. Prof. Torr (talk) 18:42, 22 June 2012 (CEST) So this is just a petty little show of internet superiority between you and Ronillon? Just stop. For example, the "tribal key" internal link was just added through Graf's systematic organizing of the 3D-models page, and is not needed. --Ganado (talk) 18:45, 22 June 2012 (CEST) No, it is not. I just want red links gone FOR GOOD. Plus, note that by finally creating all these articles, I am actually making Ronillon's position on red links look reasonable. It was HIM saying that it's good to have all those red links so that someone, some day can write all the articles, right? I GUESS HE WAS RIGHT! SOMEONE IS WRITING THEM! And by the end of the week there will be no more red links, just articles! Short ones, sure, but everything has to start somewhere, right? So sayeth a disciple of Ronillon the Wise. Prof. Torr (talk) 18:57, 22 June 2012 (CEST) Sure sounds like a personal vendetta with him, but whatever. --Ganado (talk) 18:59, 22 June 2012 (CEST) No, it is but an attempt to contain his madness before it's too late. The number of red links has almost doubled since last month, we must not allow this trend to continue. Join me in the struggle and the victory shall be ours. Prof. Torr (talk) 19:07, 22 June 2012 (CEST) I agree that most of the red links in the 3D-models page does not belong because most of those items are only in the engine and have no chance of actually being part of 2238. So I'll get rid of some of the links, not make pages for them.--Ganado (talk) 19:14, 22 June 2012 (CEST) I have a compulsion policy of not editing articles unless I can ensure that everything in them is in the right order, but you go ahead and delete as many red links as you can, every deletion is much appreciated. We are down to 286 wanted pages already - that's over 200 red links fixed in just one day. Prof. Torr (talk) 19:22, 22 June 2012 (CEST)