User talk:Brossow

Have something to say?

If you have something to say, please click here (or use the [+] tab at the top of the page between "edit" and "history") to add a new section in order to keep the page more organized (unless, of course, you're commenting on a topic already being discussed).

Please also remember to sign your post by using the signature button at the top of the editing box (it's the second button from the right, between the red "no" circle and the horizontal line) or by typing --~~~~ at the end of your entry. Thanks!

-- B.Rossow ^talk_contr

My bad

You're right about the edit to the traps page. I personally think it's more useful to have the info in the table, and don't mind scrolling sideways, but I shouldn't have just undid your change. Sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nebjob (talk • contribs) 14:07, 5 February 2009

No problem. :-) -- B.Rossow ^talk_contr 20:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a follow up on the edit to the traps page. MouseHunters are NOT happy about the changes. They like the ease of looking up the trap info right there in one click from the main page. This wiki is for them, and should cater to what they want. That is the responsibility one takes on when one becomes an admin. That's what the Devs do for us in MouseHunt. Heres a topic on the boards. Who is messing with the wiki

With the Catacombs trapsmith now open, there's no way with the current table structure to fit all of the prices in without scrolling sideways on most normal screen resolutions. I've got a 22" widescreen display and the table with prices WITHOUT the Catacombs info goes right to the edge. There's also the issue of maintaining accurate info in multiple places and having duplicate info sprinkled throughout the wiki. I'm more than willing to consider workable suggestions despite what some people might think, but I've yet to actually see one. If people would step up and take responsibility for providing an easy to read, easy to maintain solution that would keep everyone happy, no one would be more pleased than me. But the complainers don't seem to understand the reason the prices were moved in the first place. Sadly, it's a lot easier to complain than to offer solutions. Maybe if others would put in the same time and effort, they'd have a better understanding of why myself and a couple other editors don't tiptoe around fragile egos when careless changes are made. Maybe instead of forming a union they should simply educate themselves about how a wiki works, take the time to proofread before posting (shift key, anyone?), think about how their edits improve the wiki instead of worrying about theirs being the last edit, and then contribute useful, thoughtful info instead of whining about how much they hate me because I cleaned up after them. I simply couldn't care less about people's egos; I'm here to put my experience to work, not to overlook garbage for fear of offending someone by correcting it. -- B.Rossow ^talk_contr 06:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Lol, once again we're at the topic of explaining edits. While time consuming, its good for other editors to see the idea behind some of the more major edits. Anyways being the original editor who added the refund and pricing section into the table back in early December (Brossow kindly tidied it up for me), I shall explain the rationale behind the original edit.

Initially, no refund information was available at all. Someone added the "sells for" column, which was subsequently filled up with some info. However the major problem with a single column is that it is unable to show prices for 2 locations, a problem very specific to the Forcefield and DeathBot weapons.

In order to best represent the information, I decided to spread out the information into the different locations. Adding these columns really stretched the table, and introduced lots of redundant blank space into 6 columns that were never going to be filled with information, as can be seen here. At that point it became very apparent that it was going to be a temporary measure. As more locations are added with more Trapsmiths, the table will end up with even more useless empty space, which is unacceptable for good wiki presentation.

Hopefully that clears up even more misunderstandings over editing work. While I wish that someone could have come up with a better layout, no one ever did further overhaul of the code. Eventually the expanded location scenario came up, with the Catacombs being introduced. While I couldn't quite bear to remove my own work, I'm glad someone could identify the major weakness of it, and take some action. In this case, the section was removed and the information shifted down one level into the individual trap pages.

While not necessarily the best solution, it is better than one ultra wide table which no one can read properly, rendering it quite useless. Of course we could revert back to the one column + additional explanation on price variations below the table, but I found that to be a very inelegant layout, which was why I modified it in the first place. And so again, we're left waiting for more editors to step in, not with their mouths but with their hands :)

And just to borrow Brossow's talk page, which seems to have a higher hit count than some of these pages, we are short of good editors! So do chip in. Don't worry about making mistakes, because you have people cleaning up after you all the time! Some of my initial edits were piss poor and got cleaned up real quick. -- Grexx 10:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you think it would be possible to get the space "cheese effect" uses reduced (by puting a key and just VS for Very Stale and so on... and get the part we had to move out back so we can make them happy?--Meurquidi 03:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The bit of space saved still would not provide enough room for all current and future pricing. There just simply isn't room. The basic info needed for decision-making is there now along with information on where to get more detailed info. I really think this is a good compromise. -- B.Rossow ^talk_contr 03:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The info on how much you get as refund would be interesting there tho. --Meurquidi 04:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Why? Is it really an important piece of info that people rely on for making a purchasing decision? All refundable traps refund at 18% of their purchase cost (if I'm remembering the math correctly). People don't buy a trap based on how much it refunds for and that's what I see this info being used for. And really, how lazy are people that they can't be bothered to make one extra click for a piece of information they'll only use one time? It's not like people buy and sell these traps over and over. I freely admit I don't get it, but if there's something big I'm missing I'm willing to learn. -- B.Rossow ^talk_contr 04:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Wiki: Zingbats

Yes, I am new to the wiki. However, we discussed in the forum thread that the best way to get the journals is to use white cheddar in the meadow. As it's dropped by a Dwarf mouse, it automatically makes White Cheddar cheese the better bait option. Additionally, I'm only recording the number of users who happen to have caught it first time. As a man of science, I would not even consider my theory without evidence. I think 8 users catching it first time using the principle is a enough evidence to at least suggest it as a technique. See Mole Mouse for similar techniques of using white cheddar to catch a certain mouse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zingbats (talk • contribs) 11:58, 8 February 2009

As a man of science, you might recognize that your sample size is too small to draw any meaningful conclusions (8 people out of some 100,000 players). At any rate, I moved the info to a "Hunting strategies" section (similar to the Mole Mouse page you mentioned) to try to find a balance between fact and theory. -- B.Rossow ^talk_contr 18:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh come on. While I agree that I have (in no way) got enough evidence to say "Yes, every time you go to the Meadow with White Cheddar you will get the pages...", I have definitely got a pattern worth mentioning, and indeed investigating.

Additionally, moving to the hunting strategy page is useless. It's really got nothing to do with hunting, and everything to do with finding the pages! A user isn't going to look to the strategy page to find out how to get it, but rather the pages page itself.

The whole point of wiki is linking and unifying information. That means putting it into the right place.

Umm ... did you bother to look at the page? The info is right there below the table. I didn't move it to a different page. It's right there in a more appropriate place ON THE PAGE. -- B.Rossow ^talk_contr 18:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought you meant the main hunting strat. page. Apologies.

No need to apologize, really. Just a misunderstanding. For what it's worth, I just tried out the theory and will agree that it seems sound. Worked for me, anyway. What bothers me is that it doesn't seem to work for everyone. Having the info in a separate narrative section allows more room for discussion and explanation of the strategy, as I hope you'll agree. On an unrelated note, it's good wiki etiquette to always sign your entries on talk pages using the signature button (second from the right above the edit box) or by typing --~~~~ at the end of your post. No hard feelings, I hope. -- B.Rossow ^talk_contr 18:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

NVMRC Forcefield Trap

Saw you took care of the pic for the Cupid. The NVMRC Forcefield Trap's picture-link is broken and points to the ambush trap now, maybe you could take care of it..? --Johnson 12:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

ACRONYM

Hi, I just thought I'd point out that there's two versions of the page for the ACRONYM weapon, one with correct and one with incorrect case (Unlike the other two Arcane traps, it has an upper-case "Of" in its name). You can look at recent changes for the whole story... I'm trying not to get upset, or upset anyone. I'm getting offline now to head home from school in any case, and will be online in half an hour or so. -- Pakaran 01:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The one redirects to the other. No problem there as far as I can tell. Thanks for the heads-up! :-) -- B.Rossow ^talk_contr 01:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)