User talk:Dragonhelmuk

Lamprey D2 Link

Very nice addition with the Lamprey's link to D2! Do you prefer if I leave messages here on D3W or on the other one? --Leord 14:02, 19 January 2009 (CET)

No problem, I was just browsing through the list of edited/created pages and I thought: "How could Leord have forgotten my favourite monster, the Pain Worm!?"

Actually I lie, I really thought: "How could Leord have forgotten those half-invisible little worm-y things spawned by the annoying glowing things?" And then spent 10 minutes getting my facts straight and editing the page... But it's all the same right? ;>

And I don't mind, write wherever it's relevant I guess. I'm still a bit confused about why there's a need for two wikis - don't you get loads of duplicate information? --Dragonhelmuk 04:46, 20 January 2009 (CET)

Haha, indeed, it's the same (almost)! ;)

Regarding the two wikis you're right, it's slightly confusing, but a decision we made some time ago, since other wikis with multiple games usually get even more confusing. Especially in this case when we had so much material already at hand, and wanting to make sure we have that available in an easy navigation. It would have been too much work to incorporate the two, wince the Diablo 2 wiki needs a lot of restructuring and more links to be up to par. It's excellent, and probably the best source of info out there today, but the availability needs to be better, and spending all energy on that would mean no work on D3 stuff.

Anyway, I am hoping that we will be able to implement D2W nicely into the main DiabloWiki in the future without any major hickups, but there is still so much to do, so it's not even on the agenda yet. Also, some of us actuall likes it better this way, we'll see how the final solution will be. another way is to use the interwiki-templates I made to link them together better, and to easily separate them.

So, do you think you got time for other little wiki edits, or is this the peak of your creativity? ;) --Leord 16:29, 23 January 2009 (CET)

On the subject of multiple wikis: It's probably more convenient, 'cause if you mash 2 different games together on one wiki, you get contradicting statements (Healing is done by chugging as many potions as you can, or by spamming Holy Bolt. Other article: The main form of healing is by swallowing glowing red orbs which seem to make little sense. Yeah right), and duplicate articles (Class articles, Barbarian, Fallen...). Either you get huge pages (which would have big load times = high server load. And they'd probably look awfully cluttered) or you always have to go through a disambig page to get to the correct page (well, either that or suffixing everything with (Daiblo III) by default :P ). Now that'd be annoying.

I myself see few downsides to having 2 wikis seperatly (esp since they're about different games).

Also, there's other ways of getting inter-wiki links rather than using a template that inserts http://www.sitenamegoeshere.suffix/wiki/ --> Manual:Interwiki. It also relieves the server, since it won't have to load the template 5 times per page ;) You'll need raw database access to edit in new interwiki links, though.

One thing to keep in mind with those; They're blue, as you might've noticed. I bet you'd be able to change the color, but better do that before using them site-wide :) They stand out a lot now. --Vipermagi 17:54, 23 January 2009 (CET)

Fair enough then, I do see what you mean: it would get very confusing if there was just the one wiki for things like healing. (Even if sp d1 players could use holy bolts to heal and had to use staffs of healing and pepin instead!)

As for whether or not this is the summit of my aspirations... You'll have to wait and see if any more articles catch my eye! I'm not intending to go on a creating spree right now, but maybe in the future... One thing you didn't mention, Leord, when you were talking about d2 lore the other day was that a lot of the unique items are named after bits of mythology (not to mention the sets of course), some of it obvious and some of it apparently meaningless, so if anyone ever works on individual item pages maybe I can contribute some knowledge (and pictures) there! --Dragonhelmuk 03:20, 25 January 2009 (CET)

Thanks a mil, Vipermagi. Need to look into that! The colour should just be a styling things, so no probs. I will play around with it a little, and we'll see what happens. =) I'll likely try to get in new interwiki additions as soon as possible.

Dragon, there will be individual item pages. I don't know when though. On the StarCraft Wiki, there are contributors that are more regular in additions. We have lots of them here, but most have short time to spare. Believe me though, items are on the list! --Leord 18:44, 26 January 2009 (CET)

User Page

That's a brilliant user page! I think it's better than mine, since mine's a mess =) --Leord 15:14, 3 February 2009 (CET)

Well your userpage does show you up as a man of mystery, but if you spent as much time working on yours as I did writing and finding the links for mine, this wiki's production level would probably drip dramatically! ;> --Dragonhelmuk 01:50, 4 February 2009 (CET)

Hehe, somehow I had not seen this message o.O. Anyway, it looks great, but you don't have to be objective on this page, you can use it as a blog, or just personal info page. If you ever become as important as Holyknight3000 or Delowyn to the community, then we'll start looking at making an objective actual article about you ;) --Leord 15:11, 11 February 2009 (CET)

Poke

I use this headline as poke center, in case I posted a reply to you somewhere else. I did! On my page =D --Leord 11:58, 27 February 2009 (CET)

User page updates

I like your user page updates :) --Leord 20:15, 15 September 2009 (CEST)

Sanctuary

Very cool find for months, Dragonhelmuk! :) --Leord 13:15, 1 October 2009 (CEST)