44,502
editsTalk:Guardian of Faith (passive feature): Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
Talk:Guardian of Faith (passive feature) (edit)
Revision as of 08:37, 23 November 2023
, 23 November 2023HiddenDragon moved page Talk:Guardian of Faith (Passive Feature) to Talk:Guardian of Faith (passive feature)
(Comment.) |
HiddenDragon (talk | contribs) m (HiddenDragon moved page Talk:Guardian of Faith (Passive Feature) to Talk:Guardian of Faith (passive feature)) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
::: I would lean towards acting first without necessarily waiting for a read receipt. It seems like an uncontroversial decision now that we have evidence that the transparent version is used by the game itself. -[[User:Sky|Sky]] ([[User talk:Sky|talk]]) 15:16, 3 October 2023 (CEST) | ::: I would lean towards acting first without necessarily waiting for a read receipt. It seems like an uncontroversial decision now that we have evidence that the transparent version is used by the game itself. -[[User:Sky|Sky]] ([[User talk:Sky|talk]]) 15:16, 3 October 2023 (CEST) | ||
::: Edit: I've done the change. Hopefully this is a satisfactory conclusion for all. | ::: Edit: I've done the change. Hopefully this is a satisfactory conclusion for all. | ||
--------- | |||
: I am not really going to be able to address everything, sufficiently, for now. I just came on to quickly correct a simple error, and something very simple has really snowballed into a nightmare. Even though these comments are in good faith, I might just give up in general at this point, with no ill will. I will ''try'' and briefly cover some key points. | : I am not really going to be able to address everything, sufficiently, for now. I just came on to quickly correct a simple error, and something very simple has really snowballed into a nightmare. Even though these comments are in good faith, I might just give up in general at this point, with no ill will. I will ''try'' and briefly cover some key points. | ||
| Line 17: | Line 18: | ||
: Sorry for being so blunt, and the unplanned, but I think relevant tangent. It wasn't my original intention here. Nearly all the issues that have arisen in this instance were clearly voiced as a potential issue more than once, both on the wiki and elsewhere. I very clearly mentioned the fundamental issue leading to all the others here at the very start, and one person got so upset I felt I had to drop it, so I am particularly annoyed all this has arisen completely coincidentally, from an unrelated edit and following seemingly unambiguous guidelines and examples. It's a problem that has had to be actively avoided recently elsewhere too. I do appreciate other's actually acknowledging a comment for a change and won't ignore anyone, though I really am exhausted, so might not be quick to reply. [[User:Llamageddon|Llamageddon]] ([[User talk:Llamageddon|talk]]) 21:39, 3 October 2023 (CEST) | : Sorry for being so blunt, and the unplanned, but I think relevant tangent. It wasn't my original intention here. Nearly all the issues that have arisen in this instance were clearly voiced as a potential issue more than once, both on the wiki and elsewhere. I very clearly mentioned the fundamental issue leading to all the others here at the very start, and one person got so upset I felt I had to drop it, so I am particularly annoyed all this has arisen completely coincidentally, from an unrelated edit and following seemingly unambiguous guidelines and examples. It's a problem that has had to be actively avoided recently elsewhere too. I do appreciate other's actually acknowledging a comment for a change and won't ignore anyone, though I really am exhausted, so might not be quick to reply. [[User:Llamageddon|Llamageddon]] ([[User talk:Llamageddon|talk]]) 21:39, 3 October 2023 (CEST) | ||
------- | |||
:: Leaving aside the substance of this discussion, if wiki editing has become a nightmare for you and causing a lot of stress, I suggest that you step away from it for a day or two. Ultimately, I don't think the topic of whether to use one image or another on an article that represents a small concept in a video game is worth your mental health. | :: Leaving aside the substance of this discussion, if wiki editing has become a nightmare for you and causing a lot of stress, I suggest that you step away from it for a day or two. Ultimately, I don't think the topic of whether to use one image or another on an article that represents a small concept in a video game is worth your mental health. | ||
:: I also hope you can understand that reverting to the consensus/status quo in the absence of solid guidelines or consensus is how this wiki operates. Perhaps you're right and the image used to represent Guardian of Faith (Passive Feature) should be the roundel icon and not the transparent tooltip image. But that's a discussion that probably needs broader consensus and wider participation than the talk page of a single article. At the moment, the vast majority of passive features use the transparent image rather than the roundel, so that should be considered the consensus. | :: I also hope you can understand that reverting to the consensus/status quo in the absence of solid guidelines or consensus is how this wiki operates. Perhaps you're right and the image used to represent Guardian of Faith (Passive Feature) should be the roundel icon and not the transparent tooltip image. But that's a discussion that probably needs broader consensus and wider participation than the talk page of a single article. At the moment, the vast majority of passive features use the transparent image rather than the roundel, so that should be considered the consensus. | ||
:: Once again, I hope you can take care of yourself. Ultimately only you know the best way to do that. - [[User:Sky|Sky]] ([[User talk:Sky|talk]]) 23:00, 3 October 2023 (CEST) | :: Once again, I hope you can take care of yourself. Ultimately only you know the best way to do that. - [[User:Sky|Sky]] ([[User talk:Sky|talk]]) 23:00, 3 October 2023 (CEST) | ||
::: I only came back because I was making a quick fix to something else before leaving. I am only going to reply because it is extremely relevant to the 'substance of this discussion'. It is unfortunate that there isn't a better forum, despite having asked for one. | |||
:::: "''I also hope you can understand that reverting to the consensus/status quo in the absence of solid guidelines or consensus is how this wiki operates.''" | |||
::: The [[Help:Style_Guide#Game_mechanics|style guide]]: | |||
:::{{Quote|noitalics=yes|<p>Small unfaded icons:</p>}} | |||
::::{{Quote|noitalics=yes|<p>Use the following naming conventions: Page_Name_Icon.fileformat</p>}} | |||
::: The [[Template:SpellPage|spell template page]]: | |||
:::{{Quote|noitalics=yes|This is the spell's in-game icon.}} | |||
:::{{Quote|noitalics=yes|<p>Example</p>}} | |||
::::{{Quote|noitalics=yes|<p>Fireball Icon.png</p>}} | |||
::: The above was also discussed in-depth, over days, in the presence of both people commenting here. I think there was some grumbling from at least one of you about wanting to ignore consensus. To avoid argument, I just suggested that any exceptions to guidelines and rules should be explained somewhere easy to find, and there would be no problem with that. | |||
::: I have also asked for some kind of coordinated discussion page more than once, and it has been emphatically denied. Not are you pretty much wrong on almost everything you have said, it seems that you must have never even bothered to either look for or read any guidance or consensus, even before your comment just now on the subject. | |||
::: It's not icons I have a problem with, it's not differing opinions, and it's not that people might be ignorant of guidance or consensus. It's that three people in a chat room somewhere count that as consensus, that someone decides that their status-quo unilaterally trumps consensus, and that guidance should be ignored. But most of all, it is that when they do any or all of the above, they then belittle, talk down to, or ignore those who do actually follow the exact examples of how this wiki is ''supposed'' to operate. If any of this is brought up, it is generally met with arguments of "overcomplicating things" or "thinking too much". | |||
::: Condescending comments concerning my mental health really isn't called for, especially considering your recent behaviour. For the same reason, you know I am perfectly capable of taking time away. Bringing up someone's mental health, unprompted, as a reply to a comment on a wiki page is just uncalled for, repeatedly implying that they must have mental health problems is simply maliciously abusive behaviour. I don't know what caused this repeatedly obnoxious attitude from you but I certainly never intended to offend you. | |||
::: It's unfortunate that I am proud of what we have achieved here in terms of user-facing content, and enjoy using the wiki for myself. When things get this farcically unmanageable and toxic, it means basically having to stop playing Baldur's Gate to avoid wanting to even look up a page here. I nearly didn't come back to the wiki today, and then decided to check here before leaving after all, thinking someone might actually have something helpful or supportive to say... It definitely isn't the editing that is making the experience so unpalatable that I just have to walk away from contributing. [[User:Llamageddon|Llamageddon]] ([[User talk:Llamageddon|talk]]) 17:05, 4 October 2023 (CEST) | |||