Talk:Potions

redirects like this are more user friendly than the "Search results" pages. ~kytti khat– 06:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a link to the target article right on the main page. If between that and the search results players are too thick or too lazy to find the target page, I'm not sure their time is best spent playing online games. --B.Rossow · talk 12:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Khat. Redirects are free and occasionally help the user experience. There's no reason to insult inexperienced users. Let's just make it as friendly and useful as possible. --Metal 13:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

There's a lengthy discussion about redirects in the editor's corner area. More people should take the time to become familiar with this part of the wiki. --B.Rossow · talk 13:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I have to "admire" your style of welcoming new editors to the wiki. ~kytti khat– 02:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

When we're hit with a flood of newbies who demand to make changes that aren't in the best interest of the wiki and the established system in place, which often coincides with Ronaza's visits, I don't always have time to stroke fragile egos as I'm too busy scrambling to contain the mess. Sorry. It's only when the newcomers want to "bite" that I'm inclined to bite back, to use your Wikipedia reference. --B.Rossow · talk 02:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

So now you're implying that users that might have difficulties navigating should be limited in their options for finding the information they are seeking. For example, readers with dyslexia, many of which are highly intelligent, yet you would classify them as "too thick or too lazy", who are you to judge who the wiki is suitable for? ~kytti khat– 02:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

No, what I'm really saying is there's a limited pool of editors who have demonstrated a commitment to keeping things manageable around here in the absence of active admins. The wiki is set up the way it is based on more than a year of trial and error, discussion and debate, and experience from other projects. Ideally we'd have active admins and a large pool of qualified, interested, and committed editors who could maintain the hundreds of articles, categories and redirects some people would like to add. But the fact of the matter is that we do not have that luxury, and that means making some hard choices based on what has and has not worked through the history of this wiki. One such lesson we've learned is to keep things simple with as few pages, templates, categories, etc. as possible while still presenting the info people need to find what they're looking for. I forgive you for not having read the page history of every article on the wiki, as almost literally other editors and myself have done because we've been here from the beginning and essentially created the wiki you see today. But what I have a hard time forgiving is people who want to change policy and practice without at least trying to familiarize themselves with the system in place. It ain't perfect, but it's what we've got and those of us who have committed countless hours to building this wiki up aren't going to simply sit back and let newcomers degrade what we've worked so hard to create. I hope at least that much is understandable. --B.Rossow · talk 02:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

So basically only editors that have been here from the beginning are really the only ones capable of editing and maintaining this wiki. Additionally from what you seem to be telling me is that the quantity of editors is likely not going to increase, thereby necessitating that all things should continually be done as per directive from the "founders". The logical extension of the thinking that there will not be new or additional editors that could or would want to maintain or enhance the wiki in new directions. Going on that premise the only logical reason for the lack of new editors would be a lack of new players, but that cannot be the case or else Hitgrab would be working with a dead-end product that should logically be down-sized, however i am quite confident that is not the case and that in fact there are new players and as such new editors, and yes many of those new editors are more than happy to do the little things to keep a wiki running smoothly, yet the way they are welcomed be with trout. -- bah. ~kytti khat– 02:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

New editors are always welcome when their edits are constructive and thoughtful. But one common characteristic of good new editors is that they take the time to familiarize themselves with established procedures on the wiki before making significant changes like adding a flood of new categories and shortcuts (for example). They don't editorialize excessively in their edit summaries and instead take their disagreements to the relevant Talk pages for either the page or user in question. They generally don't use phrases like "dood srsly" in their edit summaries when they wish to be taken, well, seriously and perceived as mature adults. I'm sorry you don't feel you were greeted with trumpets and rose petals, but thanks to having a real life outside of the wiki, I don't have time to hand-hold each newcomer and explain our protocol in detail. I expect any serious editor to be able to find the Editor's Corner link on the main page, to read it and its subpages, and then follow the guidelines set forth. If there's disagreement with those guidelines, then it should be discussed instead of just getting your feelings hurt and having a pity party. To me, if an editor can't be bothered to do these basic things, then it tells me as much as I need to know about that person's potential for being a valued contributor to the wiki. And right now, when things have snowballed thanks to Ronza's latest visit, we've had a LOT more maintenance to do and that means less time for being warm and fuzzy. Sorry if that resulted in hurt feelings for you or anyone else. --B.Rossow · talk 03:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really concerned with being taken seriously, after all this is all about a game, no? ~kytti khat– 03:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

If you don't want to be taken seriously, you should have said so earlier. That's what I get for assuming. Now I'm done wasting my time with you. --B.Rossow · talk 03:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)