User talk:Sub2pewds

From The Battle for Wesnoth Wiki
Revision as of 17:12, 3 January 2020 by Octalot (talk | contribs) (Wings of Victory dropped from mainline: new section)

Template documentation

Hey, would you mind documenting all your new templates using (IIRC) <noinclude>? –Celtic Minstrel (talk) 04:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Celtic Minstrel! Sure, I'll do that. I have been admittedly lazy in this regard, as I was so keen to get the lore up as quickly as possible. I'll add some documentation over the next few days. Sub2pewds (talk) 17:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

TRoW scenarios that shouldn't take the page for their name

Thanks for adding all of this documentation. There's a couple of TRoW scenarios that I think should have "_(scenario)" in their article name:

There's at least two meanings to The Dragon, but they're both scenarios (the other is in SoF).

Octalot (talk) 20:07, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Octalot. I will respond to each of these in turn.
  • The Fall: This one, I reckon can remain. You are right to point out the other meaning, but upon inspection of the Under the Burning Suns campaign, it seems it has a more full name... the Great Fall. I would advise that The Fall remains the title of the scenario and a hatnote is added to the top of the page pointing to another page titled Great Fall. Thoughts?
  • A New Land: I think I concur. I was aware of the scenario, and wasn't sure if we would ever create a page for it, as it isn't exactly canon, per se. But I'll concede vanilla Wesnoth maps merit their own page.
  • The Ka'lian: Yeah, you're definitely right about this one.
By the way, I don't have admin capabilities, so I can't move pages. I don't want to create new pages and clear old ones if I can avoid it, as it deletes edit history, which is undesirable. If you can help, or know someone who can, it would be very much appreciated. Sub2pewds (talk) 22:26, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Makes sense to me, the list of admins is at
As well as being an admin, shadowm is author of two well-known but non-canon campaigns set after the Fall; she'd probably be able to tell us more about whether it should be "the Fall" or "the Great Fall". OTOH, now that The Fall exists I concur that it should stay as the TRoW version.
Octalot (talk) 21:51, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Okay. I've posted on the forums. shadowm usually seems responsive there, so hopefully she'll comment. And thanks for the admin list. I haven't yet wanted to move anything very big, but I have left some pages around by accident that I didn't have permission to delete or move, specifically these pages:
Sub2pewds (talk) 03:51, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  • For the record, if you want to move a page, just ask Vultraz, shadowm, or one of the other admins with that permission. —Celtic Minstrel (talk) 04:34, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Celtic Minstrel. I suspect Pentarctagon would be the ideal person to talk to, given he/she seems to be the most active admin on the wiki. I don't have anything that currently needs moving, although it would be great to see the candidates for deletion culled. Stuff has been sitting in there for at least five years, such as this article. The four links I listed above (Category:Mermen, Infobox Character, S-end, and S-start) are among those pending deletion. I'll let Pentarctagon know via their talk page. sub2pewds (talk) 08:41, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  • They'd probably be more likely to respond to a forum PM than a note on their talk page. —Celtic Minstrel (talk) 01:53, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Notability guidelines

(I'm not a moderator, this is just an opinion from another Wiki user.) I like the amount of effort that you're putting in to the TRoW pages, but feel having a page for every orc leader is too much. I'd say that "was an enemy leader in a kill-enemy-leaders scenario, said something, died" isn't notable enough to have a page separate from the scenario. Octalot (talk) 12:24, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Octalot. To this point, my reasons for including pages for the orcish leaders have been in part personal preference. Another motivation was observing particularly successful game wiki sites, such as (see Venim Iceblade for example), which generally considers being named in-game as sufficient criteria for inclusion. What I would consider notable on this wiki would probably include all explicitly mentioned characters from the mainline campaigns, just because it is such a clear-cut rule, but if the Wesnoth community decide that this is too broad, so be it.
I'd be interested to hear what you would support in terms of notability criteria. I have had to make a similar criteria for this template, obviously preventing an endless list of characters in the navbox. A similar metric would need to be made for general inclusion. It would need to be well-defined in order to prevent ambiguity over whether or not an article should be included.
Please note that I am probably not the best person to write such a guideline, simply given that how strict it is would affect how many of my articles would be deleted, i.e. I'm biased. If one is passed, I am happy to take up the task of making a list of articles to be deleted and removing all relevant links. sub2pewds (talk) 20:05, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Midlands to Swamp

At the moment I'm waiting for feedback from Zookeeper, but I've opened a pull request to change the first diverging campaign path so that the player always gets a chance to meet Minister Edren. If the player chooses The Midlands, then after meeting Sir Ladoc Haldric realises that he has to backtrack and go through the Swamp of Esten anyway.

Given our completely different perspectives on the game, I'd appreciate your feedback. Octalot (talk) 21:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I'll try to give a considered response on the pull request conversation. Thanks for bringing this discussion to my attention. sub2pewds (talk) 21:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Wings of Victory dropped from mainline

Hi, and sorry that you spend time working on Wiki pages for WoV after TRoW. I don't know what will happen to the Wiki pages, but the campaign itself has been thrown out of mainline.