Talk:Hylek Nahualli

Only hostile ones

I think that you will find that pages such as this list the hostile, neutral, and friendly variants on one page. --Spionida (talk) 17:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• where do friendly versions go? 70.209.70.50 17:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

They should go on this page, by my understanding of this wiki's conventions. --Spionida (talk) 00:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Replaced inadvertent deletion

I participated in editing most of theses pages and none of them list friendly in them. It has been this way for a long time and I don't see why we should start adding them now, or else it's going to get confusing. Also, since friendly can't be slain (ironic, I know) for loot, which is often listed at the end of the page, it's another reason for not listing them. Louise 20:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

End replaced inadvertent deletion

Don't know why you deleted my post, a bit childish but anyway, I'm getting tired of all this. You have been after most of my edits since the shark thing and it's getting on my nerves. The pages concerning foes and allies have been like that for quite a while. These pages are used to show where these foes are located, what abilities they have and what loot they drop. As far as I'm concerned, you can't battle with allied NPCs so by definition, you can't know their abilities and you can't get loot from them. Pretty self-explanatory. Louise 00:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The deletion was inadvertent, I never even saw if. I opened this page via a link emailed to me. I did not see any post from you. Sorry. I know that wikis do not delete posts/changes. A pure accident.

I am not going after your edits because it's you or since the "shark episode". I see your changes when they cross my watch list. If I disagree and it's "minor" then I let it go,being unwilling to argue. There are many NPCs that have mixed friendliness on the same page. Most of the skritt variants can be hostile or friendly. I have never come across a page of the type [[Hylek Nahualli]] and [[Hylek Nahualli (friendly)]], they have always been on the same page.

You edit large numbers of pages, probably lately more than the rest of us. It's scarcely surprising that people find areas of contention. You think one thing, I think another, we should ask for a consensus. AFAIK, that's the way to go. --Spionida (talk) 01:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

We can't split pages by disposition since a single NPC can switch between them. Unless we use templates/subobjects to document instances of the NPC, we can't document individual locations.--Relyk ~ talk < 02:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

So you are basically saying that "hostile" variants and "friendly" variants go on the same page? --Spionida (talk) 02:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Yup, it's a single value in the infobox that lists possible dispositions.--Relyk ~ talk < 02:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

There's a disposition parameter in the infobox? I don't see it. I thought we had discussed it but decided it wouldn't provide any value (or at least not enough to balance the necessity of retroactively adding it to every existing NPC page). —Dr Ishmael 04:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

It's there but it does not display, useful for searches? I have never seen it actually used. --Spionida (talk) 04:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

You can write any parameters you want as template input, but unless the template is written to recognize them, they won't do anything. I'm saying that the {{NPC infobox}} code doesn't have anything to recognize a "disposition" parameter (or even anything similarly named, unless I overlooked something). —Dr Ishmael 04:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll rephrase that, it's a property listed on [[1]] stating it was handled by the NPC infobox template. --Spionida (talk) 05:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with the infobox template. That's purely semantic wiki documentation. Like ishmael said, adding disposition for NPCs is edit intensive and barely adds value. We do ascribe disposition when organizing NPCs on location pages and that's been sufficient for the wiki.--Relyk ~ talk < 06:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

(Reset indent)

But Louise, I am genuinely not "have been after most of my edits". I don't have the time. But if I see you making an error, or what I believe to be an error, am I not supposed to question it? Again, you make so many edits that it would be statistically likely that yours were some of my queries. I have queried others. I have to say that you have ideas about how things should be that don't fall in with the consensus, or my interpretation of it. Large parts of the wiki seen wrong/stupid/poor choice to me, but I don't make wholesale changes without asking. And I live with the consensus. If I felt strongly enough about it, then I would try to change the consensus. If that didn't work, then if it was bad enough, I would stop using the wiki. --Spionida (talk) 06:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Uh Louise tends to follows wiki conventions to the tee. Some of the topics simply haven't been discussed in awhile and we support being bold in edits for those cases. that's also why it's helpful to bring up discussion on NPC formatting and the infobox template instead of scattering the battle across multiple NPC pages.--Relyk ~ talk < 07:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

So the answer to my questions is.... a bit confusing... there is no place for (some) friendly npcs that share the same name as hostile npcs? Ikarus (talk) 10:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

It's been stated that they can be mixed on the same page. --Spionida (talk) 12:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Relyk, follow such conventions as (1) remove historical classification because it interferes with his view of what it should be (2) add hearts to every page that that heart might operate in because it's the way it should be (3) state that it's always been the case that NPCs of different dispositions can not share a page. Oh. he's excellent at layout, no question. He's lately a proliferative screen shotter. I recognise his efforts. But sometimes, three episodes above, he decides that established ways are wrong/not his/always have been done differently when they have not. As for restricting these discussions to the template or other page, it strats with a comment about a particular case, then escalates. --Spionida (talk) 12:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for making it more clear for me. Ikarus (talk) 17:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course, this happens all the time with discussion. My point for centralizing discussion (not restricting) is to make it easier to find for other users. We can move this discussion section to NPC formatting and I think we should.--Relyk ~ talk < 02:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)