User talk:Laurly/Archive01

WW:GUILD Policy
Please review the Guild Page Naming Policy before moving any more guild pages. It states that the namespace actually has to be Guild:Guildname (Realm EU/US). Thanks! -- 21:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ok missed the Guild part that will teach me to be doing edits at midnight sorry Laurly 07:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Single locale servers
Even if a server name is US or EU only, it should still specify US or EU. Such in the case of Guild:Power Word Drunk (Bleeding Hollow). Bleeding Hollow is currently US only, however guild articles should still specify locale. -- 15:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Still testing the bot i will add a US EU check to the server it finds Laurly 15:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm
AU RLY ?-- K )  (talk) 15:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, your Bot has marked my guilds accomplishment page for speedy delete, saying that the guild does not exist. http://www.wowwiki.com/Guild:Immortalis_%28Uldaman_US%29/Accomplishments you may need to check your code to make sure that it is in fact working. Azrael 19:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

There was a bug in it with regard to guild subpages ie /Accomplishments being in the guilds categorie. its fixed Laurly 20:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Page Removed!
The Bot just removed our complete page with a lot of work put in to it (http://www.wowwiki.com/Guild:The_Three_Musketeers_%28Dragonblight_EU%29 | http://www.wowwiki.com/index.php?title=The_Three_Musketeers). I suspect this was done because of The Three Musketeers beeing a raiding collaboration between three guilds rather than "a" Guild. Please restore the page if possible, and advice how to file it correctly if it needs to be moved.


 * The bot checks if the guild exists if it doesnt it is set for speedydelete. Only "Guilds" that exist should be in the guilds category. One of the admins is retreaving your page. Laurly 07:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Restored it. I think GOG handles that or something.. tired.. need sleep.. -- 07:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Banehollow
One of your bots deleted a massive among of relevant info from Lord Banehollow. Several pages report similar problems.-- Ragestorm (talk · contr) 21:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * the bot should only be updating NPC pages that don't currently exist. I reverted the change. Currently trying to track down where the request was submitted from. thanks for reporting the error Laurly 22:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I went though all the NPC's she updated today found 4 other cases besides the one you mentioned.  I will track down the problem first thing in the morning.  Again thank you for reporting this issue. Laurly 22:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Scythe of Elune
Saw that you'd added a lot of the quests for this chain. Hope you don't mind if I come in after and mess about just a little? Look over my changes, see if you like them, would you? --Eirik Ratcatcher 23:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Quest Chain fixing needed
Couple things... You can use it how you like, though. And it is not necessarily a bad thing to put the first quest in the chain in the quest chain category until a proper quest chain page can be generated, IMHO.
 * I'd envisioned that the Quest Chain category would be used by pages that
 * described the entire chain
 * and/or held the transcludable quest chain listing


 * Laurlybot appears to be assuming that quests in a chain will always require disabiguation. This generates pages like Quest:The_Annals_of_Kirin%27Var_%282%29, which is needlessly disambiguated.  This is correctable, and is indeed marked for user correction.  However, as correcting the issue requires changing the links to the page as well (to be a complete solution, anyway), it generates more work than is absolutely required.


 * the quest chain descriptions generated are, in fact, fully inserted in the page, not included. See my above comment about my estimates of quest chain category usage.

Want to say, glad to have at least the first of the work handled on these. Better than no page at all for the quest. Hope the followups ... follow up...

--Eirik Ratcatcher 17:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Additional note, now that I look at it... the quest chain construction takes out the disambiguation note for the quest chain display in all cases.  In those cases where it is needed (eg Quest:The Missing Diplomat) I feel that it is in fact useful to have it there.  One person's opinion, though.  Roust about for others...  --Eirik Ratcatcher 17:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * check village pump we are trying to get some kinda official consensus word on how best to handle quest page naming.
 * If you want the quest chain cat to show a page with just the quest chain i can have the bot create a separate page for that as well no problem
 * Laurlybot numbers each quest in a quest chain to avoid any confusion as to what quest comes next as well as to be sure that the quest names will be unique now and in the future. (check village pump comment) Laurly 18:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Icons
See the little icons I used on the quests box? -- 22:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Bot
Your bot did produce an incomplete quest chain on the Druid Swift Flight Form questline, I will fix those manually since there seem to be other minor mistakes in the quest pages too. --Hurax 12:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * im assuming you are referring to . What you have done is in fact combine two quest chains into 1. If you check both thrott and wowhead you will see the quest chain in fact ends where the bot stopped.   Would you please revert your changes so that they reflect the real quest chain. if the second quest chain does in fact follow the first quest chain feel free to put a note at the bottom of the last step in the first quest chain.  Laurly 19:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In this case, Thottbot and Wowhead are wrong. It is one single questline, starting with Morthis Whisperwind and ending with the Raven God. I know it since my druid is on it right now. You can see it at Swift Flight Form. If you don't believe me you can read the comments on Thottbot, or read the quest texts. --Hurax 21:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you stopped to consider that the bot is pulling from armory, not wowhead/thott? --Sky (t · c · w) 21:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So maybe it is armory, and the other sites copied from that or the other way around... In my opinion a quest chain where you need to complete each previous quest in order to get the next one, and usually tells a single storyline. With the Swift Flight Form quest chains both are given, so it should not be split in several parts, which would make no sense on their own. I fully respect and appreciate your work with the bots, but a human can sometimes see more. --Hurax 21:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Either way they are still separate quest chains. A quest page should and to date does show quests involved in that quest chain.  If you must do a previous quest chain before that then note it but it is not in fact part of the second quest chain they are separate throt / wowhead and armory reflect.  As its late now i have put it on my to do list tomorrow to clean it all up so that its clear. Laurly 21:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * edit wars are not a good idea. If you disagree with something you should leave the page as is and speak about it in that page discussion.  Changing a page that directly reflects wow data to something else that you feel is more correct than actual wow data and then reverting it back after i revert your errors is wrong. I refuse to get into an edit war with you and will refer this issue to the admins.  I maintain the opinion that quests pages reflect actual quest data and should have notes if they require prequests. Prequests are not in fact part of a questchain. Laurly 22:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

A matter of definitions. My feelings on quest chains include
 * a Cut Scene does not interrupt a chain. Many quest chains have cut scenes, where the followup quest is not available until after the cut scene.
 * the fact that a different NPC gives you the followup does not interrupt a chain. The point of describing the chain is so the reader can follow the thread (or, follow the dots).
 * a quest chain is a story of sorts, not just a series of do this then do that.

Thottbot always (and Wowhead and Alakazam often) break quests chains that otherwise follow the above. But we aren't thottbot. Our pages can be much more useful to users than automated process can generate. Use those other sites as jumping off points, and use common sense as to whether the chain continues or not.

As I said above, I feel a quest chain is a story of sorts. Breaking the series of quests at the point you did is for me the equivalent to a chapter break. Were it not that you cite other online database sources as authorities, I would suggest that you are viewing it as a volume break (think: as in a trilogy). I would be comforted were you to confirm that you had given it more thought beyond "that's what this other site said". I feel confident that you have, but you didn't actually say so.

If you believe strongly that a quest chain should (only) follow those rules that Thottbot and Wowhead (and perhaps Armory) follow, please do set up a Vote for it, and write a note on the Village Pump to direct folks to it. The Quest Chain page seems eminently appropriate to host the vote. This falls squarely within the "how to organize data" section of voting policy, so is highly appropriate. I would very much appreciate a concensus on this particular issue, as quest chains are something I have been contributing to recently. --Eirik Ratcatcher 19:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not bothered either way. I just favor data and the bot gathers said data. There is no way i can code the bot to figure out what prequests / chapters come before or after a quest chain, that data simply isn't available (at this time). So as long as we are clear on the fact that this is not a bot error. The bot correctly listed the quest chain as per the data available to it. i'm happy to let people edit the quest chains how they see fit. :) Laurly 19:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you both for clearing up the issue. I remember a cut scene before "The Eagle's Essence", so that's why those tools do show them as separate chains although they are linked. Since I was a bit annoyed I did revert to my changes, which was bad style. Next time I will make sure to wait until the problem has been discussed. --Hurax 23:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No worries. Bots do what bots do with what is available.  That's why they invented humans... And as with Hurax, thank you for clarifying matters.  I didn't want to step on toes if I could avoid it.  :) --Eirik Ratcatcher 19:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)