4,977
editsTalk:Guardian of Faith (passive feature): Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Talk:Guardian of Faith (passive feature) (edit)
Revision as of 17:05, 4 October 2023
, 4 October 2023no edit summary
(Adding lines to distinguish llama's comments better) |
Llamageddon (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
:: 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) | |||