|Thread title||Replies||Last modified|
|Because I don't want to wait for you to get back on.||0||19:50, 19 January 2015|
|Life Skill Success Rate 100%||3||23:29, 8 January 2015|
|"Girgashiy" or "the Girgashiy"||2||09:23, 23 December 2014|
|Quest Marker||4||13:06, 13 December 2014|
|Revisiting Old Discussion Threads||22||01:17, 12 November 2014|
|About your recent edit||1||23:15, 29 May 2013|
|Jus sayin.||4||08:37, 9 April 2013|
|Sidequests||3||20:11, 21 March 2013|
<Doom> let me try this again
<Doom> could you please treat new users a little nicer?
<Doom> it makes me sad to see a mod give a new user a hard time
Said new user vandalized, according to Angevon, an Admin. Get that fact into your head before you ask me to be nicer.
Another thing I should add is why the pluralization? If you got more than one example than please bring it on the table. An example that hasn't vandalized.
I'm mean because I treated someone who vandalized, rudely? Well, sorry I'm not a saint.
In an edit summary you ask if it is "Girgashiy" or "the Girgashiy".
Since you face two at once in the G19 quest Answers from Above, I think we can safely say it's "a Girgashy" and "the Girgashiy".
As reasonable as that sounds, Devcat doesn't always follow logic.
The answer we should follow is how it's referred to in-game.
Not everyone uses a quest marker; some people have it disabled because of lag and stuff. I don't think it would hurt to include the NPC's specific location.
It clutters the page with even more information. But I see your point.
Where is the line drawn, then? Do we give directions to Duncan every time he's mentioned? I'm exaggerating, of course, but there's a lot of NPCs that people may not know the location of without looking them up (which is always easy to do anyway).
As a side note, I wasn't aware you could disable the quest marker. How do you do it?
I believe its best that only the first encounter should be mentioned. If the NPC is in the same spot, one should already know where that NPC is since they visited him/her already.
As for disabling quest marker, Options -> Game -> ETC. -> Enable Hide Quest Info
I know it's not written anywhere, but it's generally in bad form to revisit discussion threads that are several months old if you don't really have anything significant to contribute. In particular, I'm referring to this and this since both discussions were already essentially finished.
The reason it's frowned upon is because it notifies the previous participants of the discussion that there is a new reply even though no one really cares about the discussion anymore (which is why the discussion finished in the first place). As such, unless there is a significant breakthrough on the topic at hand, it's considered annoying and shouldn't be done.
Your idea of something significant obviously differs from mine. In both cases I disagreed with the conclusion. Thus, I left a comment to prevent any more misinformation from being spread to anyone else who reads it.
Also, it's exactly BECAUSE previous participants are notified that adding a comment months or even years in the future is meaningful.
As far as I could tell, you were reiterating information that was already mentioned. I didn't see any misinformation at in those threads that wasn't already corrected. I also didn't say that notifications from old threads were bad. I was saying notifications for old threads without any new information were bad.
I don't intend for this to be a lecture, but there is a term for bringing up old discussions for what appears to be no purpose. It's called "necroposting". It has a bad connotation to it so try to avoid it unless you really really think there is a good reason to do it.
This isn't about differing definitions...
>both threads were made 6+ months ago
>said threads were wrapped up on the same day they were created
Then you repeat things months later that were already mentioned.
"Verification/clarfication requested" is not wrapped up. People sometimes stop replying for any number of reasons for absurd amounts of time; this does not make the issue wrapped up.
And my reply in the other thread clearly disagrees with your previous assertion. Unlike Superveemon, I don't agree that stackable items can be fed to spirit weapons simply because there's an item specifically designed to be fed to a spirit weapon that can be stacked.
The issue we have is that you were just restating information that was already in the thread. A good example of what this feels is if we left this very thread alone for six months, and a random guy came in and said "Doomsday31415, you shouldn't necropost." It would be illogical to do that because it was already mentioned by the rest of the participants of the thread and the discussion would no longer be relevant to current events.
And before you tell me that the example is stupid, yes, I know it's stupid. I oversimplified and exaggerated to make a point. You still did something similar.
I disagree with your comparison. It's completely a strawman. In both cases, I brought something to the table that wasn't there before.
Please look at what was said in the threads again and reassess your opinion.
I did. Multiple times. I don't know what else to tell you.
I don't usually like to do this, but I would like to point out that I am the moderator that patrols the discussion pages. That's actually the only reason why I even brought this up in the first place.
If you really believe you bought something extra to the discussion, I'm just going to have to say that you need to do better. It wasn't enough to warrant a necropost.
The only reason I paid you heed was BECAUSE you're a moderator. It was about the first thing I checked!
It's clear we're not going to agree on this, though, so let's leave it at that.
Unfortunately, I cannot leave this alone unless it's clear that you know what you did wrong. Therefore, I'm going to try to continue to explain. In the context of the original discussion, all parties involved already knew the general rule. In fact, Superveemon mentions it in the original post and Yinato only replied to point out that there was an exception. As such, when you pointed out the general rule again a few months later, it seemed entirely unnecessary. Does that make sense?
EDIT: Also, at this point, I suppose this isn't really a problem about bad necroposting, but rather a problem on reading the intentions of a discussion. After this discussion, you seem reasonable enough to already know that making inane posts on old threads is a bad idea. After all, our point of contention is whether or not the post in question has any substance or not.
To add on to what Blargel said, you're not only missing the point, but also misinterpreting the old discussions.
I wasn't saying that "stackable items can be fed to spirit weapons simply because there's an item specifically designed to be fed to a spirit weapon that can be stacked."
What I did say, was
And I'm saying "Yes, you can't feed it because it's a stacked item." Regardless of 1% of the items being exceptions, stackable items in general cannot fed to spirit weapons.
I'm arguing against exactly what you said.
At this point, I think this argument should be stopped and two things should be pointed out.
- Yinato already knows the information that Doomsday31415 is pointing out.
- What both of you are saying are not contradictory. Yinato is speaking in exact terms. Doomsday31415 is speaking in general terms.
There is no real argument here. Just semantics.
The entire discussion between Yinato and Superveemon stemmed from semantics. Superveemon initially mentioned that small gems couldn't be used because they're stackable, and Yinato gave the example of a stackable item that could be used.
Now that I've looked a little closer at the page history, I'm going to also motion to have the removed text re-added: "As a general rule, stackable items are never suitable as ego food."
Is there any reason to continue discussion here as opposed to on the talk page?
You can re-add that yourself if you want and if anyone objects, they can bring it up with you separately. However, the discussion here is about pointless necroposting. It feels like you're deliberately trying to jump subjects to avoid trouble, and if you are, you should stop. I've pointed out to you why your post did not warrant reviving a dead thread. In the future, please make sure that you have something meaningful to contribute before you reply to old discussion threads. Merely agreeing or disagreeing with someone is not enough. Something like results of an experiment that shed new light on a subject is. When in doubt, make a new thread. If your post does not have enough substance to warrant a new thread, it probably doesn't warrant a necropost either.
What exactly is the problem with necroposting, especially on a wiki? How has his post impeded you or anyone else at all? He tried to contribute what he thought was useful information. Of course, useful is a subjective term, as you can tell by the disagreement in this thread; can you blame him for that?
Take a moment and think about it to yourself: Why do people hate necro posting? If you can give me one decent answer that makes sense, I'll give you a cookie and let you win this thread (not that there's anything to win. But clearly, you guys really want to win.).
It's you and Yinato who are constantly bringing up the issues other than "necroposting", he's simply giving you a response. Of course, by your logic, it's somehow his wrongdoing.You guys are quite desperate to win these lame arguments, aren't you?
This is the why people no longer enjoy contributing to the wiki and has accrued the bad reputation it has; stupid shit like this happens to the people who try to help.
Let me quote the "almighty" Blargel and say:
inb4 I get in trouble for this post and you idiots call me a "retard". Lol..
Again with the sarcasm, huh? I've been reprimanding you repeatedly because you have this sort of attitude, not because you have opinions that don't match with mine. You could easily make the same points you just did without sounding like an ass. You do bring up some valid points though so I will attempt to address them one by one. I hope this makes it more clear what I am trying to achieve.
Although others hate it, I have nothing against the act of necroposting itself. The problem I have is with necroposting that doesn't have anything meaningful. You'll notice that I did not say anything about this or this since something new was actually brought up in both posts. That sort of information and questioning is fresh while still being relevant to the threads so people who are notified about it might actually be interested. Reiterating old information, however, would only serve to confuse and annoy the people who are notified.
Unfortunately, from my experience, the majority of necroposting that occurs is the sort that is meaningless. After talking it out with him - respectfully, I might add - I understand now that he was trying to add information. Unfortunately, from my point of view, he failed to do so. My last post which you just replied to was an attempt to give some guidelines on how to avoid the problem int he future.
About the "jumping topics" remark I made, he appeared to change the subject to re-adding that one line to the article and then immediately ask if the discussion really needs to continue here. I may have misinterpreted it, but it sounded like he was trying to pass this thread off as a discussion of the article and not of the original topic. If that's not the case, then I apologize.
I don't believe I have anything else I need to reply to since you look like you are just trying to slander the wiki and myself by twisting my words.
I'd also like to apologize for how big this blew up into and for crapping up the recent changes. I had intended for this to be a quick 1 on 1 to help Doomsday31415 avoid future trouble, but I failed to keep it brief.
Creating new threads on a wiki is just as bad (if not worse) as necroposting. At least you have some context with a necropost! If this were a forum where threads that are old fall out of view, it'd be a different story.
You thought I jumped topics simply because several of the replies I was referencing would be better suited for the talk page. Deciding whether or not the necroposts were meaningful should have ended hours ago when they sparked new discussion on the topics.
But it didn't spark new discussions on those pages (referring to the spirit weapon and rest discussions). The discussion on your user page is about necroposting, to which you did jump topics...numerous times.
Also, the entire first part of your reply is completely opinionated. Hell, if it was fact and not opinion, then you wouldn't have people telling you not to necropost to begin with. If you can't take the context of a thread you make from its title, then that's your own fault.
That pretty much repeating everything that was already said. There was literally no point in adding that to a 5 month old thread.
Yinato mentioned there were exceptions.
Irrlevent to this thread, so only mentioning it. Just because an item isn't stackable doesn't mean you can feed it to an ego.
> food. > dye. > certain pots > I can continue.
Holy Flying Jesus on a god damned jetski, you guys. I come back home to 17 new messages, I think 6-7 of those were from other threads, but still.
Necroposting isn't really always bad, but it can be completely useless. I don't think that ego food thread ever needed clarification. Nor was anyone asking for a clarification. If you want to clarify something that was already said in the talk pages just edit the page, I don't think many people look at the talk pages for information and editing the page itself is good enough.
It's just a discussion section, people can add even crappy contributions (not saying the contributions were crappy). Of course they're not allowed to spam or anything. Contributing or corroborating information is fine.
There's no rule against necroposting here it's just a netiquette thing. I don't think it applies to wikis since threads aren't bumped; and if someone's sick of being alerted by a thread they can unsubscribe. I don't think people even look at the dates on those threads... The only time I'd really say it's different, is if the response is to a user that's probably gone. Even then, though, the silliness is on the poster's head.
When it comes to useless posts, I don't think the age of the rest of the posts matters, anyway. If someone only contributes useless posts, or seems to be having trouble understanding the content of threads, that may take moderator involvement, but that's it. Necroposting, I don't think so; it's fine.
That's all; this thread is over.
If I could have ended this thread by just declaring it over, it would have ended a long time ago.
But I agree with your stance that there's nothing wrong with necroposting on wiki threads. I think everyone else here also (eventually) agreed that this wasn't about necroposting.
Are you in Ruairi? If so, do you have a lorna box for sale? /selfishness
I think what you wrote is common sense, since titles are selectable regardless of talent and are simply cosmetic.
Well, then it's there for the people who lack common sense, like me.
Sorry, that was rather cold of me. I was in a pretty bad mood since I just rebirthed saturday night. Now, let me explain my stance in detail.
I believe the difference in terms stems from the previous name for talents, destinies. Unlike a lot of people (apparently), I still refer to the talent you choose during rebirth as a destiny, since, well, that's what it is. As such, when reading about talents, it's very easy to see "talent" as "talent title", since although the title itself is cosmetic, it's still a representation of your level in said talent. Furthermore, when looking up information on the talent page, I'm only interested in said titles, and the effects having the title available provides.
But even so, I'm guessing the next question is how I could expect a "cosmetic" title to have any effect on NPCs. The answer for that is simple: the talent you choose doesn't have any effect on NPCs either. Or, at least, they don't except in this very special case. So we have "destinies" and "talent titles" that apparently one of them changes NPC dialog. It's not as much a stretch to assume that like normal titles, the cosmetic title also changes the dialog for certain NPCs as well.
So, that's my explanation for why it may not be common sense for everyone reading this. Take it as you will.
Actually, I made sure that the newer sidequests with the quest template format were word for word for the highest point of a bullet. And thank you for correcting the typo, just next time please comment that they fixed it ingame just to make sure. (And yes, verbatim is important.)
And what value is there in having incorrect information as the primary instructions on the wiki?
Believe it or not people actually play for the story too, that includes almost all text word for word. Of course, we can't store everything, but it's still good to store what we can. We still have a full record of the old G1-3 and the old Falcon quests, it's good to have quest data too for normal quests.For links, we still direct them to the correct page (such as linking Port to Port Cobh), but for less obvious errors we write down what they meant in a sub-bulletin.
I have no issue with there being a record of the story. What I have an issue with is the fact that the primary instructions, as in the ones you will look for first, have forgotten their most important purpose: to be complete and accurate instructions on how to complete each quest! If people really want all the dialogue, they
- Should play the story first hand.
- Should have all the dialogue and story, in order, without any instructions attached.