User talk:Wonderfl/Archive/2009

Equipment sections

I'm getting you the link right now, but I'm most certainly not the only wikipedian to think so. It's been discussed to death.DurinsBane87 (talk) 10:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:GAMECRUFT Line 6 specifically. DurinsBane87 (talk) 10:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Mentioning weapon names

Is it alright if I write prose which includes weapon names to illustrate important issues? Like:

"Silenced weapons like the G17-SD, SMG-2, PSG-1SD were particularly highlighted in this version because the focus was on stealth, and undetected strikes, as the name Covert Strike suggests.

Wonderfl (talk) 03:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

If you can link those guns to their respective articles, then that should be acceptable, so yes. DurinsBane87 (talk) 20:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Equipment explained in prose

I've mentioned weapon names in the Gameplay section that I wrote for IGI2, is it permissible like the way it is, or would I have to strip out the gun/tool names? Wonderfl (talk) 10:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Transfer of Weapon lists to Wikia Gaming

The sections Thief: Deadly Shadows#3 Weapons and Support Items and Thief: Deadly Shadows#4 Garrett's Passive Abilities are essentially weapon lists. I suggest that I move the weapons to their relevant pages here and the abilities here, at the underdeveloped Thief Gaming Wikia. Is this alright, do I have your support on this?

Wonderfl (talk) 03:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. That page also needs to deal with the enemy list, which is unallowed on similar principles. I want to add that I appreciate your cooperation. DurinsBane87 (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your support DurinsBane87, my pleasure to contribute. I'm sure Garrett will be smiling in his grave :) And, I'm copying over this conversation to the Thief Talk page, you know, fanboys will have issues.

Wonderfl (talk) 02:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Stubbing

If you're adding stub tags, please (a) add at the end of the article not the top (per WP:Stub), and (b) don't add to articles which already have a subject-specific stub tag as you did at Visual artifact. Thanks. PamD (talk) 08:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Elrond

You moved the picture of Elrond to the info box, I have undone this. Pictures from specific adapations do not belong as the main image in the articles, it gives undue weight to one adaption or other. If a picture is to be included in the info box it should be one taken from source material, i.e. from the illustrated edition of the book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carl Sixsmith (talk • contribs) 06:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

But is it not true that the movie series is the most preferred adaptation? I did it based on that assumption. -- Wonderfl (talk) 07:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, it might be the most popular "current" image but that isn't the criteria for going in the info box, it's an interpratation of the character not a picture of the character itself. Sorry about not signing my message before. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 12:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Is the infobox criteria really so specific about the source? -- Wonderfl (talk) 05:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The info box is key information on the article. The article is about elrond from the lord of the rings, not hugo weaving's interpretation of the character. To put his picture in the info box is misleading and could give the impression that the source of the character comes from peter jackson, hence the picture belonging in the adaptions section. You can see other examples of this here and here. This differs from Captain_kirk because William Shatner is the primary source for the character. If you're interested in changing the concesus on this you're welcome to argue your point here. Just like to say thanks for being willing to debate these issues, it seems far too many users just jump into name calling and trolling when you have these discussions :-) Carl Sixsmith (talk) 06:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

No I understand completely, since this is an encyclopedia and not a fansite we must be very specific regarding whats right and whats not. On the contrary, I must thank you for taking the time to explain the issue in such detail, Thank you! -- Wonderfl (talk) 07:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

"Fansites" and Game Wikis

I've seen many game articles that link to the Wikis respective to that game, in the least. Eg. Runescape links to the Runescape Wiki. Even the featured article Halo has a link to its page on Halopedia. Why can't Thief DS? You don't make sense and please don't remove the link to the wiki. -- Wonderfl (talk) 08:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I thank you for your cooperation in this matter as is evident from your recent edits to the Project IGI and IGI 2 articles. Good job with the cleanups. -- Wonderfl (talk) 14:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Bit of help

Can you explain to me how to archive my talk page, I know one of our discussions has been archived but I don't know how it was done.. do I just add the template Archive to the talk page or is there something more I need to do to get the little archive box up?

Thanks

Carl —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carl Sixsmith (talk • contribs) 21:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

Hi Carl! Nice to meet ya after so long.

If you want to archive only a few conversations:

1. Edit this talk page, Cut whatever conversations you want to archive, then Save.
2. Click on the "archive 1" page, Edit, go to the bottom / top, Paste, then Save.

If you want to create a new archive:

1. Create a new page (eg: /Archive 2), paste the following code at the top, then Save.

   {{archive}}

2. Edit this talk page, add a link to your 2nd archive by pasting the following code just belowe the Archive 1 link, then Save.

   * [[/Archive 2|Archive 2]]

Is that easy to follow? Hope you have no trouble. See you! -- Wonderfl ^(reply) 23:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Cheers friend, it was the creating a page using the / that I didn't know about, worked now. Thank a lot. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 10:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

SWF Object

Hi! I didn't know who else to ask, so I thought I'd call upon you!.. I recently wrote an article on SWFObject. Would you please review it for blatent errors and write it someplace? (here or on my/the article's talk page) I'm still working on the citations which is why the [citation needed] signs are visible -- Wonderfl (talk) 12:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've given the article a cursory once over and there is nothing needing obvious attention, I will however give it a more thorough read later tonight, just off out at the moment. Cheers Carl Sixsmith (talk) 13:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your review and terribly fast response :) No need to look it over again if it is an inconvenience. See you! -- Wonderfl (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Unicode support

Hi, you'd better use another brower or operating system which supports unicode well. Your edit broke an interwiki link and probably it's because your brower or operating system doesn't support unicode. --Liangent (talk) 15:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thats strange, I'm using an excellent browser and the latest version too, though I don't have the Courier New font (or whatever MediaWiki uses for the editor) in Unicode. Is such a thing even available? -- Wonderfl (talk) 17:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I finally understood what was wrong. I sometimes copy over wikitext to an external editor program to work on it offline. The Unicode characters are lost that way. I'll be more careful from now on; thanks for the feedback. -- Wonderfl ^(reply) 19:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Illustrative picture added (and removed)

I just removed this picture that just got added. The picture, mislabelled as portraying screen tearing, shows a redrawing problem, most probably due to poor video drivers, or excessive CPU utilization in the computer interferring with the correct updating of the screen. --uKER (talk) 07:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is a bug with Windows XP, and certain programs do show such artifacts. It is screen-tearing because it is indeed, newer displayed frames overlapping the older. Added back. Discuss changes before removal. -- Wonderfl ^(reply) 01:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, anyone who read the related article could realize this is certainly NOT screen tearing, which originates when frame generation is out of sync with the display's refresh, causing screen draws to draw information from different frames. BTW, although some people have it as a practice, there's no "discuss changes before removal" rule in Wikipedia. --uKER (talk) 01:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

As you wish, but my point is that its a good image to show some sort of visual artifact whatever you call it. If you can think of a better caption, please do edit the article. Thank you -- Wonderfl ^(reply) 06:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I guess it can be seen as a software-originated artifact somehow. --uKER (talk) 15:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Synchronous Technology

The problem with that article is, its not just a Solid Edge component, but has been integrated partially into NX as well. So merging is not ideal though I could merge it with Solid Edge, if you like. -- Wonderfl ^(reply) 03:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter how many products they apply the term to, it is just a marketing buzzword for Feature recognition. - MrOllie (talk) 11:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You’re right, I guess, so what would you like me to do with the article? Should I merge it in somewhere because I think it covers the new “feature” quite well, including criticisms. How about putting it as a section within Solid Edge and then linking to that section from NX? -- Wonderfl ^(reply) 17:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I initially created an article for ST because all the other PLM components have individual articles, and so this is just as notable. Please see the first row in the following navbox. -- Wonderfl ^(reply) 02:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, we shouldn't have two articles on the same thing, even if a company decides to use a neologism as a name for it. For some examples, look at the large number of brand names listed on Glossy display. These are all different names for the same thing, so we don't give them separate articles. I think the best thing is probably to merge the unique content to Feature recognition, but there really isn't much of it. - MrOllie (talk) 13:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Perfectly right, and since its primary usage is as a feature/component of Solid Edge, I've merged it into the existing Solid Edge section called Synchronous Modeling. I've also condensed it by deleting unnecessary information and have merged the external links as suitable. Is that alright? Thank you. -- Wonderfl ^(reply) 01:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and there is already a mention of ST in the Parametric modeling article, which links back to the detailed explanation of the component at the Solid Edge article. Hope thats alright. -- Wonderfl ^(reply) 01:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)