Talk:Lil' Phylactery

Don't remove fact tag without a good reason

The description part can be cited by an in-game screenshot, blue post or whatever third-party source you can dig up. Don't remove the {{fact}} tag based on lack of imagination or laziness. --Beware the sneaky smile! Fandyllic (talk · contr) 12:54 AM PST 5 Nov 2009

We don't have fact tags on all of the other myriad in-game mails that are sent to players, such as from the Level 80 or  [What a Long, Strange Trip It's Been] achievements. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 01:06, November 5, 2009 (UTC)

And just for the sake of argument, [1] -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 01:15, November 5, 2009 (UTC)

Your argument is weak and you found a screenshot. If you want me to start fact tagging all those other isntances, I will. It doesn't make your argument any better. --Beware the sneaky smile! Fandyllic (talk · contr) 6:49 PM PST 5 Nov 2009

My argument was that requiring a screenshot of something that's in-game on the live servers and relatively freely accessible as a citation for itself is ridiculous, and while it may have been "weak" you haven't given any argument at all as to why it IS needed. Should we be fact-tagging NPC dialogue too? Quest text? Mob spawns? Item tooltips? That's gonna be a lot of screenshots. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 21:47, November 5, 2009 (UTC)

Amusingly, Fandy's request is almost entirely against the citation guidelines - images are not desired for citation, and this is common enough to not expect a citation. --Pcj (TDrop me a line!•C207,729 contributions and counting) 22:03, November 5, 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines are not policy! Cripes. Whatever, everyone always talks about "Assume good faith", but when it comes right down to it, it's more like "Assume what I want to be the case, or screw you." --Beware the sneaky smile! Fandyllic (talk · contr) 11:39 PM PST 5 Nov 2009

I would think that "assume good faith" would be a perfect argument for not citing something just because "I haven't seen personally it so they might be making it up." -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 23:42, November 5, 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me. You folks degenerated into quibbles. The original issue was: "I want tangible to prove this is the case".

1. Dark T immediately seizes on "we don't have that everywhere else". Everywhere else was not an issue. Here was.
2. Pcj seized on "images should not be used for citations". So what? Include the screenshot directly. Or point to it. Or give the screenshot a category to keep it wandering the streets thinking it was unused. You're arguing the method instead of the topic.

So. A request has been made to provide evidence. Someone thought it useful. Who are you to say it isn't? Are the bytes that precious? Does it make the page unreadable? --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 00:27, November 6, 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines are not policy, but Fandy shouldn't have come down so hard on DTZ since he was following guidelines. --Pcj (TDrop me a line!•C207,729 contributions and counting) 00:36, November 6, 2009 (UTC)

The point of that guideline is that an image will likely get removed for one reason or another, and with it goes the citation. It is not forbidden, it is just not a safe practice.--SWM2448 00:44, November 6, 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but when it comes to a dispute like above I would say it would be better to side with the guideline than against it. And if we're going to come down on users for basically doing what is recommended in the guidelines then maybe we'd better change the guidelines first. --Pcj (TDrop me a line!•C207,729 contributions and counting) 00:47, November 6, 2009 (UTC)

My point also was that I don't see any need to cite a block of text on the live servers (PTR is another matter) with a screenshot of itself. It feels pointless, and I don't really see any difference between this an citing, say, a quest with a picture of the quest text. Why would one be cited and the other not? Consistency is important, and if you're going to argue that it should be cited because someone may not have personally seen it, then that argument must be applied to the entire wiki. And I, for one, think it would be a waste of resources to cite every single quest or in-game mail with a screenshot purely for the sake of citing them. To me, "this text exists" is not generally a piece of information that should require a citation. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 00:52, November 6, 2009 (UTC)

Nobody has asked for "quest description images", or "screenshots of item tooltips", or any crap like that. Straw man. Don't expand the topic. This is specific content someone wanted added to the page, even though that person wasn't you.

@SWM: "...an image will likely get removed..." In this case, at least the one external link I checked (Long Strange) was to wowhead. I don't know that they chuck images on a regular basis, but they're not some fly-by-night web site. And in what way are images any more vulnerable to bit-rot than any other external link? I'll point you to forum links and let you froth about those a while, perhaps. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 23:21, November 6, 2009 (UTC)

Fandy said he wanted the image for the Long, Strange Trip... achievement basically because he hadn't personally seen it and someone could have made it up. I haven't personally seen any of the Horde quests in the game past level 15, but I'm not going to ask for image citations for something as petty as that. You call straw man, I call precedent. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 23:36, November 6, 2009 (UTC)

Including the email image

Again, please, to divorce the process of including the content from the content desired.

Do any of you have a content specific objection to having a link to an image of the email added to this page. My argument in favor is that most in-game emails are one time events. While images of those emails 'prove' that the text is accurate, they also serve as a trophy of the accomplishment. That is, they aren't just a restatement of the text, they have value in and of themselves.

For my part, I don't care if it is a reference, an external link, an include wowwiki-hosted image, or what. I feel the content has value in its own right. The original reference issue is NOT a space issue; we've spent far more bytes talking about it already than we ever would have saved. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 23:21, November 6, 2009 (UTC)

Discussion ABOUT the pet

On another note, has anyone actually seen this pet freezing other pets and critters? As far as I've experienced, he has only laughed at one PvP foe I have encountered and defeated, which brings me to the conclusion that it was coincidental that he did his idle animation instead of it being triggered by me. And I have never seen him freeze a critter nor a companion pet. Sound0ut (talk) 06:11, November 6, 2009 (UTC)

Just have to wait near a critter for him to do it. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 06:19, November 6, 2009 (UTC)

The reason theres no discusson on this is becasue this is not a forum. Talk pages are used to talk about how to improve the article, not talk about the subject of said article. Lego3400 (talk) 22:15, November 7, 2009 (UTC)

The OP was on point. And while the talk page is occasionally (rarely) used to talk about the subject, there is precedent for such talk to be split off on a separate sub-page. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 23:51, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Bigglesworth killing

Maybe the fact that he kills the cat is not irony. Mini-me, despite of Doctor Evil's atempts of teaching him, acts violently towards Mr. Bigglesworth. Torg Sunstorm (talk) 14:46, May 2, 2010 (UTC)