User talk:Anemicne

Sprite size
STOP UPLOADING RESIZED SPRITES. WE USE THE ORIGINAL SIZED ONES.

We use wiki code to resize them as fit. So don't add any scaled sprites as they are not needed and only serve to mess up smaller layouts. --Dooomspeaker (talk) 23:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * They're the same sprite, just sized up so they don't look like a blurry mess on everything. Anemicne (talk) 23:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Theres no point in doing so when the wiki can resize them as said. I don't really see the blurry mess you are refering to. Furthermore, the original sized sprites have the advantage of allowing us to later reuse the sprites or have them used by others later on for whatever projects. Downscaling is more of a problem then upscaling a simple pixel art. --Dooomspeaker (talk) 23:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The sprites look awful when looking at them in use because they wiki stretches them out into a ugly mess at anything other than the tiny resolution they were uploaded at. Uploading them bigger makes it crisper. Other than the quality change and file size, nothing changes. — A (t • c) 23:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * This is actually a limitation with Chrome as it doesn't support image-rendering: pixelated. It works in every other browser I tried. Our intention is to use CSS to scale these up as it saves on bandwidth and load times, Chrome is just being pretty crappy about it. Nickoladze (talk) 23:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you. There's no real incentive to not reupload, but thanks for explaining. — A (t • c) 23:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * FYI, it's planned to be supported soon from what I could see in their bug tracker. I know it sucks, I tried really hard to get them to scale nicely. You can read more here: Nickoladze (talk) 00:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh wow, thanks for explaining that nicely! I was wondering why they looked so blurry on chrome and on my iphone. --Grakiao (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm leaving this here:

Item pool information
While I appreciate your syntax corrections (English is not my primary language and I often make mistakes), the official policy according to User:Dooomspeaker for stating item pool informations on item introductions is:

"[19:19] <@doomspeaker> as a rule of thumb: If it's stated in the info box it shouldn't be mentioned again"

GryphusR (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * A comment isn't a policy. — A (t • c) 18:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Help:Rules
 * Avoid posting redundant information within the same article. In the case of information being placed in infoboxes and the normal article, infoboxes takes priority; otherwise it's left to the editor to decide the best place for the information.
 * It's in the rules. I even told you about that rule some time ago. You are behaving really obnoxious you know?
 * --Dooomspeaker (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Except you added it after. — A (t • c) 19:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * We had this talk already. Anybody would agree that adding info again is against common sense and only you wanted it duplicated. Then I said I'll write up comprehensive rules so that there wouldn't be problems like this anymore. Yet you still added that stuff. I'll make this easy: If you can't accept these rules, then leave articles alone. The least thing we need is an editor fighting for their brand of editing. Don't like it? Then write up a discussion as to why we should duplicate info already present on pages again.
 * --Dooomspeaker (talk) 19:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Then why don't they actually use the discussion instead of just agreeing? 20:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Because you are the only person that thinks we should double mention things. --Dooomspeaker (talk) 21:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Because no one bothers to ask why. — A (t • c) 22:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Why? Because someone might be unable to read a whole page without noticing the info box? --Dooomspeaker (talk) 22:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Ugh I miss the automatic emails. Because everyone reads the main paragraph first and not something that often ends up on the bottom of the page. Repetition is not (always)bad. It's all about location. — A (t • c) 14:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to make a ruling here. If the information is contained in the infobox do not add it to the rest of the article. The only exception to this rule is calling an item active or passive in the beginning paragraph.

Questions / comments / concerns about rules may be discussed on Help talk:Rules. --RoshanLynch (Jsmooth13) (talk) 14:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Missing Poster
Why did you completely remove my thorough and well-documented Missing Poster contribution? --Zamie (talk) 00:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * While the contribution was quite thorough, the wiki is not the place for detailing the history of the community. How the community found out how to unlock The Lost does not add anything to the purpose of the wiki. --RoshanLynch (Jsmooth13) (talk) 02:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * When I first wanted to learn about the Missing Poster puzzle, the wiki didn't have any of the information that I wanted and I had to waste time doing research elsewhere. You said that this information "does not add anything", but I think that in this case it does add to the wiki in a significant way. I understand that the wiki is intended to be separate from the community -- it doesn't have a leaderboard of the players who first got Real Platinum God and it doesn't track the historical exploits of the most popular streamers. However, there is definitely a distinction to be made between these types of things and the kind of information that I added: a 1-time event that directly ties in with what the item actually does in-game. The story surrounding Missing Poster is exciting, interesting, and most importantly needs a place to be permanently documented, and the Missing Poster page on the wiki seems to be the perfect place to do that. --Zamie (talk) 02:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)