Difference between revisions of "User talk:Katmint"

Revision as of 07:03, 9 January 2014

hi

monster template

The new system to show the different models for monsters in all tiers is a good idea really, but i don't know why it appears bugged with Explorer (btw, it is showed perfectly with Mozilla) - Sir Onox

It works fine in every other browser I've tested. I don't know if anything can be done about it since IE breaks very easily. ~katsy 18:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

adbots

You should throw them over on Clotho's page too since equinox is rather inactive.--Trying 00:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll do so next time a spambot comes around. ~katsy 01:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

You edit the wiki a lot. You make real improvements. Thanks! Jdavis 02:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate it. ~katsy 16:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Kataclysm tags

One more thing: You've been adding tags to articles like Black Kat Cowl and Kat Hiss Cowl, saying that they exist only during special events. But Montague, Konjuring Kat, Moorcroft Alchemy Machine, etc. all exist all the time. So I'm worried that players won't know that they can redeem Ancient Pages all the time, etc. Thoughts? Jdavis 00:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I do like having the template on all Kataclysm related pages for consistency, but not misleading players is more important. I guess I could remove the templates from those pages and manually add the category. ~katsy 01:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Angelic Beta set

The art from the angelic beta set is different, but i made the page not for the art, but for the different stats that it shows in the page. Please, don't delete it. Those pages were made for historical purposes and nothing else. I changed the titles to (Beta) and i added the OBSOLETE tag.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonFaku (talk • contribs) . Please sign your posts with ~~~~

Katmint has a point, a lot of the beta equipment is outdated and have had assets replaced and/or updated. Despite the various changes in equipment, we don't list each one, an example is the Sealed Sword which originally had a slightly different design than what is currently shown. An image does exist for the original Sealed Sword, but it's not linked to any actual pages nor does it have its own page. There's a difference from something being removed and preserving historical facts, and there's a difference between re-worked equipment that already exists in-game. --Acies

But still, those items have different stats and are OBSOLETE. Which means they are no longer implemented into the game, but the data and textures still exist within the game data.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonFaku (talk • contribs) . Please sign your posts with ~~~~

Radiant Sun Shards prior to the nerf had different stats and is obsolete. Yet it was changed much like the beta armor you're describing. Much like how Radiant Sun Shards have been replaced and updated, so has the Beta-Angelic Set. The Deep Sea Set is a prime example of historical gathering: The Deep Sea Set existed in the game during Beta but it was never added into the final game nor was it changed into something new. The Beta Angelic Set was converted into the current one with different stats and a completely different look. They're the exact same pieces of armor just with a slightly different name, different stats, and a different look and thus really shouldn't have its own page. The most you could possibly do is add a note onto the pages explaining an example of the armor before the change in the trivia section. However, I don't know if it's the best idea or not. --Acies 03:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

If you are going that way, then take a look at most of the armors and shields that are in the game. Most of them are just reskins of other stuff. Like the Heater Shield, the Scarlet Shield or even the Green Ward. Those are reskins of the Defender. Or the breaker sets, that are just reskins of the Cobalt Armor. I get your point, but still if the data and files are still in the game data, i added them just for consistensy and historical purposes.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonFaku (talk • contribs) . Please sign your posts with ~~~~

I figured you were using some model viewer. If I have time all of your pictuere will be slapped with delete tags.--Trying 00:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Before that you should learn to use some proper grammar DragonFaku

This discussion is over, no need to start a fight you two. (That, and I'm sure Katmint will start getting annoyed seeing such a long thread on the page) Dragon, headlines state that anything related to Spiralspy on this wiki is forbidden for official documentation. Pretty sure Equinox has a whole thing on it somewhere. --Acies 04:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't use Spiral Spy for any of the pics i uploaded. I got the pics from the steam community hub and the forums. I also got the info of the old beta stuff from here. http://spiralknightsdb.wikidot.com/

Im not sure if uploading pics from old items that are no longer in the game in the obsolete category would hurt that much. --DragonFaku

Pff. There is no way you could possibly get the new icon images of obsolete items without some third party software. Oh and also my grammar is perfectly fine.--Trying 15:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Annilaton's "imaginative" edits

http://wiki.spiralknights.com/index.php?title=Construct_Family&oldid=1167

I bring this up because he's been going around adding a large amount of questionable monster descriptions, but on the other hand, all monster descriptions were originally thought up by the users anyway. I don't particularly want to make the reverts because I feel like I'm being a brickwall and this wiki has a lot of leeway compared to others. What do? --HexZyle 06:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

These edits are more playful than offensive, but everybody (including him) knows that he's a troll. You should feel free to revert him. If he goes on to make many disruptive edits to the wiki, then you could ask the administrators to intervene. Jdavis 14:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

It's sort of a gray area. There's no point to the edits besides "my description is better than yours" so that could be grounds for reverting them by itself, but from a more lenient point of view the altered descriptions aren't hurting anything as long as their quality is consistent with the original descriptions.

The only cases in which I would definitely revert the descriptions are:

• Fanon is added into a description. An example is the whole "vile bacteria" thing being inserted into the descriptions for poison monsters. It's never actually explained in-game why these monsters are poisonous, so I consider those edits to be fanon.
• Flawed grammar in the new description that was not present in the old one.
• Modifying descriptions that are actually "official" such as those quoted from the Monstrous Codex or other in-game sources.

~katsy 06:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)